Why ask? You apparently can read my mind.

From Star Trek to Harry Potter in a page of posts. Nice.

I take it all back. You're a genius. :D

And what do the Cardassians think of all this?

We were discussing a specific comment by a specific person and what it meant. And you think it's helpful to bring in other people who are not that person and talk about what they mean instead. OK. Thanks.

Do excuse my assumption your comment was relevant to the point at issue (i.e. Pelosi and her "slippery slope" comment).

Don't you start or I may have to return as the thread undead back to haunt Thorongil with annoyingly humorous comments he only half appreciates (the first half).

Speaking of humour: Pelosi as left-wing agitator - the woman who can't even bring herself to say the words "Universal Healthcare". Please, I'm choking on your rotting brains.

I don't think the individual right to a gun is a right worth having, but you have it (at least that's the way it's been interpreted), and it's not going anywhere. The proposal I made took that into account. It's fairly straight-forward.

I also like how it's three against one and not one of you has refuted anything I've said. Just straw men and attacks on my character. While not surprising, it is hypocritical, as you are all mods, and I have seen the mods delete posts of a similar nature. This will be an excellent thread to reference whenever you try to censor the Kevins on the forum in the future and thereby cause an uproar. — Thorongil

You brought me into it by mentioning me. I wouldn't have bothered otherwise. Anyhow, seeing as you feel persecuted, I'll withdraw from the conversation.

This cannot but mean that she would like to pass a bevy of regulations that would undoubtedly make it harder to legally own a firearm, which in turn is a step closer to an outright ban. In what other direction is it a step? — Thorongil

I just turned west and took a step. I guess I was headed towards London. Does that mean I am going to London?

I don't know. I think it should be prohibited. The point is that the NRA is not monolithically opposed to any and all gun regulations, as was suggested. — Thorongil

If you can't recognize the tactic of minimal concession, you just haven't been around the block more than once.

I honestly doubt that you and Baden, for example, would shed a tear if guns were abolished outright. — Thorongil

No, nor would I shed a tear if Trump's wig took over as President. But we, some of us, are bounded by reality and make our suggestions in that context. To imagine that Nancy Pelosi is going to take all your guns away is Alex Jones territory and you know better.

I meant I was going off topic. Anyway, sure they're dubious (to a degree).

I suspect the leaders of the NRA are mere shills for gun manufacturers and retailers, and so want no restrictions whatsoever. Money being essential in the politics of our nation, many politicians are beholden to them. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, that and the powers of persuasion of said nefarious elements re the general public seem to me the bulk of the explanation.

Sure, and Thais tend to hold saving face above truth. They find our truthiness ugly and demeaning at times. A (real life) example: a foreign teacher catches a student cheating in an exam, removes him and reports him to his Thai boss. The shocked Thai doesn't know what to do. The foreign teacher is confused "Cheating is against the rules, isn't it?". The Thai looks at him as if he's an idiot "Of course, but why did you see him?!" Doesn't mean this always happens everywhere but that it ever does illustrates the point well enough. Anyway, interesting but off-topic.

So you believe that a 99.7% conviction rate isnt a sign of corruption? — Wosret

No, doesn't change anything I said though.

When I wrote that first my thought was these outlets for aggressive behaviour probably helped. But really, if you look across the region you find a similar story regardless of overt "politeness" (the Japanese are apparently very polite). So, the cultural aspect is hard to pin down, and we're back to strict laws and regulations.

(That's @Noble Dust's 1,000th post. Please savour it like fine wine. Or meth. Whichever you prefer.)

I can attest that violent crime is pretty low in China. People seem to get their aggression out by shouting, spitting, and noisily devouring bowls of noodles. There's a model for a peaceful society.

Made me laugh. Not that that's exactly a stellar achievement or anything.

Werner Heisenberg was cooking up some meth when...No, wait.

:D

I'd go for purple and white. Purple for all the reasons already given. White to signify the purity and balance of reason.

Indeed...

I just hope @ArguingWAristotleTiff didn't see that last comment. I'd much rather we talked about pumpkins. :)

I meant "... necessarily right or wrong". Poetic licence. :)

It's much more likely correlation than causation. I doubt causation is impossible but then neither is violent video games reducing levels of violence.

So, @Agustino, through a twisted tunnel of linguistic thorns we have arrived finally at the hidden palace of understanding. And what lies there awakening? Naught but the stunning realization: "To not forgive is neither right nor wrong". Oh, beauteous platitude we have won, forever be our bride!

How's that @Robert Lockhart?

It seems like that, doesn't it?

Some rights are not worth having. If the right to have a gun effectively translates into the right to live in a more violent society and thus the right to suffer a greater risk of harm therein, you can take that right and stick it where the sun don't shine (with all due respect).

Asking for the just punishment isn't necessarily being unforgiving though. — Agustino

I didn't say it was, but the example we were discussing specified someone who doesn't forgive and asks only for a just punishment.

In other words is not forgiving someone for harming you and seeking a just punishment somehow immoral? — Baden

it doesn't follow that unforgiving is morally laudable (or right). — Agustino

Sure.

If the punishment is really just, then obviously that wouldn't be wrong. — Agustino

Ok, so in this case being unforgiving would not be wrong. So, it seems to me it's not being unforgiving per se that you consider wrong but wishing harm, violence, unjust punishment etc on others. That's a different issue as far as I'm concerned.

Interesting question. Just a quick one and I'll get back to this: Grammatical gender appears to be arbitrary or at least partially arbitrary in most languages, like German for example. As Mark Twain put it of that language:

"Every noun has a gender, and there is no sense or system in distribution; so the gender of each must be learned separately and by heart. There is no other way. To do this one has to have a memory like a memorandum-book. In German, a young lady has no sex, while a turnip has. Think what overwrought reverence that shows for the turnip, and what callous disrespect for the girl."

This book by Lakoff is also relevant:

https://www.amazon.com/Women-Fire-Dangerous-Things-Categories/dp/0226468046

I remember the story of Bertrand Russell on his bike one day, when he realised he no longer felt attracted to his wife. So he divorced her. He failed to see that there is anything more to love than feeling. So when the feeling was gone, so was his love. — Agustino

He was a dodgy bugger, I'll give you that.

You'll be 100% sure it is just, like how the rapist feels 100% sure that the woman really wants to be raped. — Agustino

This is completely backwards. Rapists are not "punishing" women for something the woman did to them. The rapist is abusing the woman and should themselves be punished. And I doubt most rapists can convince themselves the woman wants to be raped any more than someone who punches you in the face can convince themselves you wanted them to do it.

And I go back to the phenomenology of the experience. If you seek an unjust punishment you're never going to think the punishment is unjust are you? — Agustino

Let's presume the punishment is just. For example, the woman hopes the rapist will be sent to prison for a period of time as outlined under the law. So, what then?

But Christian love as recommended by Jesus - love your neighbor as yourself - isn't a feeling, it's a choice. Even if you feel like hating your neighbor, you should put your hatred to one side and love your neighbor. This propagates further on in other relationships such as your relationship with your wife or partner. — Agustino

If it's fully a choice, it relates fully to an act. We don't get to fully choose our feelings. Would that we did. That makes love (of whatever sort) and anger commensurate in terms of state and action.

Meaning? Anger is an emotional state for example. — Agustino

Does anger not have in common with love the fact that is an emotional state though an opposing one? Can we not talk of anger vs acts of anger as well as love vs acts of love?

I already told you - a choice. — Agustino

You misunderstand. I mean name an emotional state.

Oh, of course you won't want to "unjustly" punish the one who harmed you. That's precisely how the logic of violence works - the victim always deserves it. "The woman asked to be raped", and so on. What Jesus reveals is precisely that "the victim deserves it" is a lie, but it is precisely this lie which gets the logic of violence working and sustains it in motion. — Agustino

This makes zero sense. I am the one saying the victim should not be blamed. You are the one claiming they should be if they don't forgive. Now, can you answer my actual question?

Do you agree we can be unforgiving without wanting to unjustly punish the one who harmed us? — Baden

In other words is not forgiving someone for harming you and seeking a just punishment somehow immoral?

(I realize you wrote before it's not "moral" guilt but if so then they cannot be blamed, right? I find it hard to square your pronouncements on this.)

Yes, we can be in an emotional state without wanting to be. That experience is quite common. — Agustino

Sure. Forgiveness and love are not emotional states, they are precisely choices. Jesus always presents it as an alternative choice between violence and love. — Agustino

It's not so much of where responsibility must be laid - responsibility cannot be laid, it exists. It must only be revealed to be at the feet of the violent. — Agustino

Love is not an emotional state? What is then? Also, do you agree we can be unforgiving without wanting to unjustly punish the one who harmed us? If so, can you explain how this is violent? (If that's what you are claiming). If not, why is it at least immoral?

I did say that they would be guilty in approving of the mode of being of hatred and violence. — Agustino

Do you not acknowledge that we can be in an emotional state without approving of it? So, for example, we can be angry without approving of (the mode of being of) hatred and violence (we may simply wish we weren't angry, for example), and we can be unforgiving without wanting to apply an unjust punishment to the one who harmed us. To me, what's important, morally speaking, is not the emotional state, which is often beyond our control, but our reaction to it. Do we allow it to overcome us so that we also act unjustly or will unjust acts? Or do we stick to our moral precepts regardless? It's only in the former case that we can be accused of "approving" or "approving of" immorality (and therefore being immoral) in any sense.

My point is that if there is no radical forgiveness and renunciation of violence, then there can be no peace on Earth. My point is that violence tends to spread because each party ends up seeing itself as justified to reprisal. Do you follow that? — Agustino

Yes, and I agree with the spirit of it, but responsibility for violence must be laid at the feet of the violent (and their enablers) not at those of their victims regardless of whether those victims forgive the violent or not. Ideally they would forgive those of the violent who sincerely repented, but I see no moral obligation to do so provided they refrain from unjust acts themselves or support of unjust acts by others against their former oppressors. And even if I were to accept that that's not what tends to happen that would make no difference to my argument.



I imagine it takes a very different approach to life to be able to be that strong psychologically. More power to them.

No, not of the acts. I never said of the acts. — Agustino

A man rapes your wife. You don't forgive him. Does that mean you approve of his actions?
— Baden
"Yes, it does" — Agustino

I'm outside now so I'll come back to it later. Hopefully, we can move on to more sensible territory.



Good luck. I'll miss the ankle biting. ;)

Yes, yes, I love @Agustino too. Look at it as me helping him not to say stuff that may result in grievous bodily harm against him. Besides which, we are not going to get anywhere unless we clarify that we are using words in the same way.