Not knowing why he was banned isn't a justification in itself for unbanning.

Well, that is mysterious. Hoo was the first to be banned and I don't know how many of the rest were banned just for sockpuppetry.

Hoo had over 20 sockpuppets though. Some of them are probably mentioned somewhere.

Oh, ok.

Yeah, he had some interesting angles going, so it is a pity.

the person I have in mind has a graduate degree in physics and has reappeared on several occasions in various lively personas — jgill

You know just from the style of writing or?

FWIW I was enjoying green flag's contributions but bans are permanent so while mere sockpuppetry might not result in an immediate ban, rejoining after being banned will.

Well, Inspector @Wayfarer worked it out. I had no idea.

Thus, there is no reason to dwell on them/live in guilt or shame due to them. — Benj96

If guilt and shame are the direct result of mistakes, which you consider unpredictable and unavoidable, are they not similarly unpredictable and unavoidable? I no more want guilt and shame than I do mistakes but somehow my emotions don't give any more a fig for what I want than the vagaries of fate do.

@green flag was banned for being returning banned member @Hoo.

The Sane Society by Erich Fromm
Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford
The Castle by Kafka
On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason by Schopenhauer
The Psychopathology of Everyday Life by Freud
Ubik by Phillip K. Dick

Just finished:

Death in Venice by Thomas Mann 5/5
Notes from the Underground by Dostoevsky 5/5
Antigone by Sophocles (reread) 6/5

Yes, and it may not all work out so wonderfully, but it's kind of beautiful to imagine the cult members' heads explode in sycophantic shock as their ego, id and general psychic overlord begins his fast decent to earth sans landing gear, the final remonstrations of delusional grandeur streaming like stale farts from the doomed craft of MAGA, the impression less like a fiery comet than a burning witch on her flaming broom, the penultimate gaslit fantasy sniffed out to the sad coda of Don Jr.'s whimpers and the gleeful inner orgasms of meatball Ron as he contemplates domination over the charred remains. God bless 'Murica! God bless our fallen hero! Thank you Sigmund! Bring on the clowns!

Makes the North Koreans and Branch Davidians look kind of bland:

"Our father, the great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung, is the most outstanding leader of the times, who has made the greatest contributions to the development of human history. He has devoted his all to the people, to the revolution, and to the country for over 70 years since he embarked on the road of revolution in his early years. With his great ideology and theories, his seasoned leadership and noble virtues, and his outstanding, energetic activities, he has provided a sure guarantee for the victory of our revolution and the happiness of our people, and he has contributed to the accomplishment of the cause of global independence."

"David Koresh has shown us the true path, the way to salvation. Through his teachings, I have come to understand the true meaning of the Scriptures and the will of God. I trust him with my life, and I am prepared to stand by him until the end. He is the chosen one, and only through his guidance can we hope to find our way to eternal life."

From the New York Young Republicans Club:

"President Trump embodies the American people – our psyche from id to super-ego – as does no other figure; his soul is totally bonded with our core values and emotions, and he is our total and indisputable champion."

:rofl:

Clinton committed perjury. — Hanover

He should have gone down for that. The Democrats have no moral standing here either.

I expect Hanover is consistent btw and would criticize Republicans for shooting themselves in the foot if Clinton were indicted in a red state. It's the way things are looked at over there.

Sure, my main point though is there's always an out for those like Trump who are both rich and powerful and entrenched on one side of the political divide. Excuses will always be made, blame will always be reapportioned, and everything, including the notion of the separation of powers and the concept of law and order itself will be sacrificed at their feet because power is the only sacred principle. And it's true of both sides. If Hillary Clinton had been indicted, the Dems would be looking for reasons to employ the same playbook, though maybe with a bit more subtlety.

I get the impression that Americans don't really believe in their justice system. They pay lip-service to it but they seem to believe if you are rich and powerful, you can/should be able to use your wealth and power in every sphere, including justice, to gain advantage and favour. If someone as wealthy and powerful as Trump is held to account then it's presumed it can only be because some even more powerful agency (eg. the Democrat party) has engineered that situation. Of course, this makes the likes of Trump, regardless of the result of criminal proceedings against him, theoretically above the law as any such proceedings are presumed illegitimate a priori. Trump can never do wrong. Therefore, where wrong is done, another party, be it the Democrat party or even the justice system itself must be wrong . Ergo, Trump did not fuck up; the Democrats fucked up or the justice system fucked up.

There's a mental health problem to be sure. But it's society that's mentally ill, and the symptoms are the perverted priorities that place superficial notions of freedom above the protection of life. The cure are laws that rebalance these priorities in a rational manner. So yes, address this mental illness by getting this mad love for guns under control.

That's a little fatalistic isn't it? It sounds like you're saying that since controlling people is bad and freedom is good, we should let human nature take its course regardless of the consequences. Isn't it possible that controlling people is sometimes necessary and that's just a bitter pill we need to swallow?

I would.

Of course I oppose any monopoly on violence. — NOS4A2

Of course, you could oppose it morally and I may even admire you for that, but the result is you'd be enslaved by those with the resources to outgun you. So, you better hope you don't get what you wish for.

No they're not but put it another way, if you were designing an ideal society, would you really make it such that people could privately own any weapon they could afford? You realize what would happen would be an arms race among the rich and unscrupulous that would lead to them controlling society's resources and enslaving those they could outgun. Feudalism, basically.

Your rights are socially instituted and involve not only you but those who you may endanger in their exercise. You have no natural right to run around with any kind of weapon you choose. Let's get that straight first.

See the above post. I personally benefit only in that I am disturbed by children and other victims of gun violence being needlessly murdered and I won't be if they're not. But the argument is based on society's responsibility to prioritize needs, desires, and rights among its citizens.

Look at it this way, NOS: You may feel you and other gun owners don't deserve to have your guns taken away. Others may feel that future victims of mass shootings don't deserve to die. If there's an incompatibility there, the law needs to prioritize. The sensible priority seems to be the preservation of life.

That's how changes in law work. Because they are made to benefit society as a whole not you personally.

You've just aptly described the justice system. Should we stop punishing criminals then?

Apart from being a very odd argument, this exemplifies the genetic fallacy. It wouldn't even matter if the KKK invented gun control, it's either a good idea on its own merits or it isn't. And examining whether or not it will save lives seems a reasonable way to approach the debate. Fallacy-ridden rhetoric randomly strewn with emotive language less so.

Are we not talking about mass shootings here? @Tzeentch mentioned "mass murder" so I presume we are. The above includes anyone who got shot in a school, including very young kids who got their hands on their parents guns and likely didn't know what they were doing. That's a different issue.

Average age of a mass shooter in the U.S. is 33 btw just to put @Tzeentch's misleading claims into context.

https://rockinst.org/gun-violence/mass-shooting-factsheet/

You don't think kids committing mass murders is a mental health issue? — Tzeentch

The Nashville shooter is 28. "Kids" aren't committing the vast majority of these mass murders. Adults are.

I doubt I could muster enough conceit to find any desire to control your's or anyone else's life. — NOS4A2

Thanks for biting the grenade on that. The idea of allowing everyone to have whatever weapon takes their fancy / they can afford is cool in a sort of Mad Max way. I'm sure it would eventually result in good behaviour and a perfectly peaceful society (because everyone would be dead).

You wouldn't deny me an armoured vehicle or grenade launcher, would you @NOS4A2? As long as I was competent to use them.

:lol:

Though by that measure, we might have to judge @NOS4A2 as being sarcastic too as I honestly don't believe he'd disagree with anything I've said.

You have a basic human right to defend yourself with the most powerful means available? — Michael

If I have enough money to buy a tank, I should be allowed one. A tank never killed anyone on its own.

I would settle under protest for mere submachine guns though grenades and bazookas never killed anyone on their own and are no more dangerous than cars in that respect. As long as the government continues to give in to such irrational arguments we will continue to be punished for the crimes of others and our utopia must wait.

I'm currently teaching my five year old how to use hand grenades and bazookas in the hope that my government will get sense and start to respect our freedoms. If every competent child brought a hand grenade or bazooka to school, none would dare to mess with each other and we would have pure peace and freedom and possibly the libertarian utopia we all deserve.

Re the above, when 1) and 2) come into conflict, it tends to prioritize 1). E.g. It wouldn't let me get away with the claim that the trashy Hollywood movie "Transformers" isn't art--apparently that might insult someone--and much irritating wishy-washiness ensued.