Thu May 17, 2007 11:21 am, sschaula wrote:I'll refrain from swearing, even though the use of a word definitely doesn't indicate any mind-state.
Well...Fri May 18, 2007 12:27 pm, sschaula wrote:What the hell was Kelly putting forward?
.
Thu May 17, 2007 11:21 am, sschaula wrote:I'll refrain from swearing, even though the use of a word definitely doesn't indicate any mind-state.
Well...Fri May 18, 2007 12:27 pm, sschaula wrote:What the hell was Kelly putting forward?
Do you have an argument directly against this?The logical argument is simple.
The belief that only personal firearms deal properly with criminals is likely to result in a lessoned faith in reason, and in turn has effects on how one deals with purely intellectual conflicts.
Do you have an argument directly against this?There are far more opportunities for reflection and self-awareness in martial arts. One needs to have an excellent understanding of human anatomy and psychology (and how the two work together) to know the weak points of an attacker; a good understanding of physics (different types of force, levers); and underlying everything else, an excellent understanding of Reality.
If you're interested, find it yourself. Otherwise, STFUS: "shut the fuck up, stupid."Where have you done that, and where have I failed to do it? Lets get back to a good point by focusing on this. If you can't answer the question, it can reasonably be assumed that you haven't asked me to substantiate any elements of my argument and that I've been making reasonable, on-topic arguments.
I don't know. I liken it to a testosterone-based challenge over stamina, personally...Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Leyla and Scott -
I'm guessing that both of you have already presented all you have since you have reverted to childish name-calling and not added any more points to your positions.
.
(See!)sschaula wrote:Elizabeth,
Hell is a swear word? Besides, I wasn't talking to Kelly so it doesn't apply.
Leyla,
I'm not interested in the fact that your statement was absolutely untrue. :-)
You better find it if you want to appear smart. That does seem to be the motivating factor for you.
I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive. If you're trying to get at the truth of something sometimes you have to think practically otherwise you're just arguing with yourself.This is a philosophical argument, not a statistical one. I like to think that there is a difference, hence this forum.
I'm having trouble with this logical argument because I can't connect use of firearms with a lessened faith in reason and then making another leap to assess the psyche of such a person and how they would handle intellectual discourse.The logical argument is simple.
The belief that only personal firearms deal properly with criminals is likely to result in a lessoned faith in reason, and in turn has effects on how one deals with purely intellectual conflicts.
Yes. Roo shooting at my family's farm was a Friday night activity for our Christian youth group.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:K: Well, if you recall, I did mention the likely psychological difference between stabbing and shooting, earlier.
E: Have you ever heard a gun fire close up, in real life?
I wasn't much psychologically affected by the gun's noise, or animals flopping over. The kickback was a pain, though.They make an ungodly noise, which will rock a person to their core anyway. When that is combined with the situation of a person going down, I can't imagine it having any less of a psychological impact as stabbing.
.
K: The belief that only personal firearms deal properly with criminals is likely to result in a lessoned faith in reason, and in turn has effects on how one deals with purely intellectual conflicts.
I don't think that's what she was saying at all. I think she was saying that because of the climate of violence & the vast numbers of guns in a place like the US people are less free to think & speak truthfully because there is always the possibility that someone who didn't like what they said could shoot them. I think this is an interesting observation & I would agree that - even if people are not consciously aware of it - this underlying fear & suspicion is an aspect of American culture that may be quite significant in motivating people to keep their heads down in terms of spouting off controversial views. This doesn't apply to everybody of course but I would say it is definitely a significant factor.ChochemV2 wrote:I believe I understand [Kelly's] original intent. Americans need to institute gun control because the unwise among us use them rashly. Also, she stated that gun ownership in America is the reason we have lack intelligent public discourse because somehow they impede logical thinking.
The first statement isn't factually supported given that there are probably something like 150 million guns in the United States and, according to her, 99% of the population is unwise gun deaths should have surpassed heart disease as the number one killer in the United States.
The second statement is absolutely and completely unprovable. You would have to find instances where logical discussions were ended with firearms or debates turned into gun battles or something like that. Kelly would have to take a poll and find a significant percentage of the American public agree that the reason they don't read philosophy is because they are afraid of guns...
Do you agree with David Hodges' point, that guns are necessary in America to enable the government to be reasonable?ChochemV2 wrote:Anyone who believes that firearms are the only way to handle conflict would be deluded by default, however, how many people believe firearms are the only way to handle conflict?
Killing the physical body of a criminal does stops that person carrying out truthless behaviours, but it doesn't stop the mentality from continuing to live in everyone who is affected. The only reasonable way to stop truthlessness is to correct it, consciously and deliberately.
Everyone is "guilty" of exactly the same thing. Every individual creates their own definitions, even if they don't realise it.Then you go on to pull a QRS on the word criminal and create your own definition which involves Truth (shouldn't it be capitalized in that use?).
It's perfectly clear to me, and is actually being demonstrated throughout this entire thread...................You follow that up with some drivel about truthless behaviors and how truthless actions live on in the people whom they are perpetrated against whether or not you stop the perpetrator. This is followed by a hint of actually handling the topic which quickly disappears into vague rambling.
It's rare to find a truth-oriented teacher or students.And finally we fall back into martial arts comparisons and how you learn stuff through it... I dunno, all I remember from Karate class was a bunch of kids kicking, punching, yelling "HA!" and getting a good workout.
And I think that's complete drivel. America suffers from, if anything, a culture of willful ignorance. People simply don't seek truth not because they are afraid of being shot but because seeking truth is difficult and dangerous (not physically, but it challenges your views in a way that nothing else does). People read the Da Vinci code because it's easy to read and it makes you feel like you're doing something intelligent, even if the story is crap and it's writing style resembles that of a seventh grader.I think she was saying that because of the climate of violence & the vast numbers of guns in a place like the US people are less free to think & speak truthfully because there is always the possibility that someone who didn't like what they said could shoot them.
First of all, the point was: Guns are necessary to keep the government honest. I think that point is fairly stupid not only because a bunch of people with handguns would never overthrow the US government, but we willfully allow our government to run roughshod over our freedoms every day without uttering a word (much less firing a bullet).Do you agree with David Hodges' point, that guns are necessary in America to enable the government to be reasonable?
They can only be stopped with firearms? I don't know if anyone has claimed that but I highly doubt it. I do, however, think that if someone intends on hurting you they have no right to do so unmolested. A gun is simply the most practical means of protecting yourself and guns are used every day (maybe hundreds or thousands of times a day) in self defense which leads me to believe people's fear of being molested is entirely justified.Or with Scott's and Elizabeth's point, that when someone is breaking into your house or into your car, that they can only be thwarted by your using a gun in some fashion?
Yes, but everyone is also perfectly capable of recognizing what the standard definition is and what emotions use of a word will evoke in the reader's mind. When I think criminals I have a fairly simple picture of someone breaking the law.Everyone is "guilty" of exactly the same thing. Every individual creates their own definitions, even if they don't realise it.
Whatever you say, I stopped taking classes around fourth grade.It's rare to find a truth-oriented teacher or students.
This is why the class I attend has almost no pupils, while the macho loud teachers have many students.
ChochemV2 wrote:people enjoy ignorance
Restricting popular access to weapons can diminish the enjoyment of spiritual ignorance, in the same way that a bully or a bullshitter, who is challenged, doesn't enjoy being a bully quite so much. It's not so easy anymore.I do, however, believe taking away guns is an unnecessary restriction on freedom because, as I've tried to show in previous posts, it won't solve anything.
Notice the deeply superstitious word: "right".I do, however, think that if someone intends on hurting you they have no right to do so unmolested.
We are all untouchable, ultimately.A gun is simply the most practical means of protecting yourself
Do the numbers grow, or lessen? That is the question to answer here.and guns are used every day (maybe hundreds or thousands of times a day) in self defense which leads me to believe people's fear of being molested is entirely justified.
Just as a standard definition may not be truthful, so also a law may also not be truthful, in which case it's reasonable to break and replace it. So, I define crime to be anti-truthfulness.K: Everyone is "guilty" of exactly the same thing. Every individual creates their own definitions, even if they don't realise it.
C: Yes, but everyone is also perfectly capable of recognizing what the standard definition is and what emotions use of a word will evoke in the reader's mind. When I think criminals I have a fairly simple picture of someone breaking the law.
The way of reason is to correct falsehoods and illogicality.What I wanted was you to expand on what this "reasonable way" is to stopping truthlessness not that it's possible and you have to do it consciously and deliberately.
I don't think I said that people didn't seek truth because they were literally afraid of being shot. I agree with you that willful ignorance is the greatest obstacle. However I do think that the climate of violence & fear of violence that exists in the US can & does cause people to be somewhat careful of what they say in public. And if you can't say it, it becomes more difficult to think it. And if there are too many inhibitions in one's mind - especially unconscious ones - it is impossible to develop the mental freedom that would enable one to think outside social norms.ChochemV2 wrote:And I think that's complete drivel. America suffers from, if anything, a culture of willful ignorance. People simply don't seek truth not because they are afraid of being shot but because seeking truth is difficult and dangerous (not physically, but it challenges your views in a way that nothing else does).I think she was saying that because of the climate of violence & the vast numbers of guns in a place like the US people are less free to think & speak truthfully because there is always the possibility that someone who didn't like what they said could shoot them.
That's assuming willful ignorance is somehow supported by gun ownership, I just don't see the connection.Restricting popular access to weapons can diminish the enjoyment of spiritual ignorance, in the same way that a bully or a bullshitter, who is challenged, doesn't enjoy being a bully quite so much. It's not so easy anymore.
Notice the deeply superstitious word: "right".
That's what we are talking about here, harm. How do you reason with someone who has no capability for reason? I consider rape to be harm, I consider murder to be harm, I consider unlawful intrusion to be harm. In all of these instances the criminal is imposing his will on someone else and reason doesn't influence his actions so how would reason stop him?If one practises reason most, then one can let people do whatever they like with one's body, so long as it doesn't do them any harm.
Do some research, I'd be interested to know the answer to that question.Do the numbers grow, or lessen? That is the question to answer here.
As long as you realize I define crime to be breaking the law. You know, theft, murder, rape, etc.Just as a standard definition may not be truthful, so also a law may also not be truthful, in which case it's reasonable to break and replace it. So, I define crime to be anti-truthfulness.
But you've still left out some rather important parts such as: how does the "reasonable person" defend himself while still remaining reasonable?For example, a reasonable person, when confronted by some crazy person shouting "God tells me to kill you", will probably do his best to prevent being killed, while remaining free from a similar superstition.
By contrast, an unreasonable person, in the same situation, will be extremely agitated, perhaps use excessive force, and believe that he also has a God-given right to kill the attacker. So, the crime - the criminal belief - lives on in him.
It's so much more complicated than that. Sure, you might watch what you say in public because you don't know how people around you may react, however, the conditioning for willful ignorance starts before you have any fear of guns. In grade school any extracurricular education made you weird and isolated you from everyone else. It was far cooler to waste away in front of MTV, kill brain cells with various substances, and basically do anything that didn't require brain activity once school was over.I don't think I said that people didn't seek truth because they were literally afraid of being shot. I agree with you that willful ignorance is the greatest obstacle. However I do think that the climate of violence & fear of violence that exists in the US can & does cause people to be somewhat careful of what they say in public. And if you can't say it, it becomes more difficult to think it. And if there are too many inhibitions in one's mind - especially unconscious ones - it is impossible to develop the mental freedom that would enable one to think outside social norms.
I'd go one step further and say firearms use, increased ownership, and the fear that most people feel are all because of our culture of willful ignorance. That is the real problem, that people feel comfortable in not questioning the world around them. Guns don't perpetrate this culture of ignorance because all the programming comes very early on.Sure, I didn't mean that firearms were the cause of willful ignorance. I agree that the whole culture creates & supports it. I'm just saying that there is an underlying fear of violence in American life that inhibits what people will do & say. And when you feel you have to curtail what you do & say, you also start to curtail what you can think.
I never said "only" and that is not what I believe. In fact twice some guy came to attack me while I was in my car, once someone tried to get in my car while I was stopped at a stoplight, and another time someone tried to use the bump and steal method on me (they had just had it in the news that a tactic being used in the area was that someone would bump into your car lightly, and when you got out to check the damage, they would steal your car - and it was 11:30 at night, I'd stopped at a stoplight, the car behind me stopped, and then they proceeded to bump into my car). In none of these occasions did I use a gun (twice I ran a stoplight to get away, once I kept honking my horn and some guys came up and intimidated him into leaving me alone [no physical violence done, but just the sight of about 5 or 6 guys coming up in all directions got the guy to settle down and walk away] and once I just sat there and considered running him over with my car, but I had a friend's kid in the car with me and I didn't want to traumatize the kid).Kelly Jones wrote:Or with Scott's and Elizabeth's point, that when someone is breaking into your house or into your car, that they can only be thwarted by your using a gun in some fashion?