Just compare societies with low gun control and societies with high gun control - And then compare that to the statistics of best places to live in the world.

Is there a point to discussing when there's data that point to the truth? — Christoffer

That is well known and has been repeated ad vomitus throughout the thread. I don't think that anyone here disagrees with that. But the problem is what to do about it. No one has any ideas about how to solve the problem when there are so many guns and people involved.

It is easy to say "Bring in tougher gun laws" but as I have said since the beginning writing laws and enforcing them are two different things.

To what ratio were you referring with your use of 'rarely'? — andrewk

Let me ask you a couple of simple question, how many people get arrested for carrying a gun before they either try to use it or actually do use it in a crime? Do police where you live actually stop people and search them for weapons without a valid reason?

Rarely means not often, seldom, infrequently, it is rarely used in any other sense so I see no reason to be providing a definition of it.

You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed, — Sir2u

If you are having any trouble understanding the above sentence I don't know how to help you.

The ratio you keep on about I think is maybe something that I did not hint at but is implicit in what I said, lots of guns and very few cops. But I am sure that I had already said that.

If you are still having trouble, maybe S will get his magic dictionary out of the shit house so you can use it.

Indeed, that was a classic case of red herring / missing the point. — S

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.

They need to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities using appropriate force. It's unreasonable to jump straight into assuming that they need to be shot. Jesus Christ. Not only is that an unreasonable assumption, it's a harmful assumption.

That kind of answer would surely fail a police exam. Or if not, say, in somewhere insane like Texas, then it should do. — S

I think you should have addressed you reply to Emmanuele as he is the one that said it would be easier to shoot whoever was carrying a gun.

And in case you did not notice, I have not agreed with him on the idea.

You seem to be hinting at some sort of ratio being low. What ratio do you have in mind? There is no obvious ratio that makes sense, given the above sentence. — andrewk

Keeping it in context helps.

Let's not forget that if weapons are illegal it's fair to shoot whoever is carring a gun on sight. It makes targetting the bad guys a hell of a lot easier. — Emmanuele

So who is going to shoot them if no one else is carrying a gun? And please don't answer the cops, because everyone knows there are hundreds of illegal guns for each cop. — Sir2u

To which Echarmion replied

And how does that prevent the police from targeting people wielding these guns? — Echarmion

And then

It does not stop them at all, it just makes them ineffectual.
You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed, that is why the tape they use says "crime scene" instead of "crime prevention scene". — Sir2u

To answer your question, even if guns were made illegal that does not mean that they would just disappear. There are millions of illegal guns that the cops are not going to find until they are used in a crime. Just shooting anyone with a gun would not work because there are not enough people to do the job. Each cop would have to find and shoot several hundred bad guys. Not going to happen.

And how does that prevent the police from targeting people wielding these guns? — Echarmion

It does not stop them at all, it just makes them ineffectual.
You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed, that is why the tape they use says "crime scene" instead of "crime prevention scene".

Let's not forget that if weapons are illegal it's fair to shoot whoever is carring a gun on sight. It makes targetting the bad guys a hell of a lot easier. — Emmanuele

So who is going to shoot them if no one else is carrying a gun? And please don't answer the cops, because everyone knows there are hundreds of illegal guns for each cop.

Another thought, accepting that god exists would also accept that devils and angels also exist. As the saying goes, you can't have one without the others.

Does that make it more complicated to derive anything from the existence of god? If anything can be attributed to god then we should be able to do the same for the rest of them.

Anyone want to describe the devil? :naughty:

And they are not doing that anyway? — Bitter Crank

Nope, they are imagining doing it to an imaginary being.

Not the same now that Timmy has granted him/her/it a part of reality/existence.

Remember Starman, Jeff Bridges not David Bowie, they had autopsy tables with straps for arms, legs, and torso.

Actually the only thing I can think of right now is that if it were verified that god did exist, there would be lots and lots of people either sucking up to him wanting favors or trying to dissect him to find out how he works.

Go forth and preach the truth to the multitudes! — Michael Ossipoff

Where did I say or imply that I know the truth? The truth about what?

You see, Sir2u has the truth. And he doesn't have any beliefs. — Michael Ossipoff

What is the relation between truth and beliefs? Are you saying that a person cannot know the truth without having beliefs? That seems very strange.

But what, in particular, is this truth that Sir2u has, that (at least some) people don't like? — Michael Ossipoff

I don't know what people did not like, I am not a mind reader. And yes it is valid to say "because they have not told me" for the simple reason that it is the truth. They have not told me. :chin:

It seems you rubbed him the wrong way in the past. — Noah Te Stroete

A wise man once said "If the truth hurts, then you must change the truth."

Lots of people are not fond of the truth. Maybe I said something he did not like, I don't remember.

LOL Rest assured I am not a violent criminal. I just have religious guilt due to my upbringing. — Noah Te Stroete

Yeah, I guessed that. Not too many of them come around here. I hope.

The reason for the question is to see why Michael thought it was necessary to rush to your defense while insulting me.

But you should resist the inclination to mock beliefs different from your own. — Michael Ossipoff

I don't have any beliefs, that is what atheism is all about, not have them. But I did not mock him, I told him what he wanted to hear. And he was happy with it until you burst the bubble.

Just briefly, remember that you don't know all the Theists or the beliefs of all Theists, — Michael Ossipoff

I have little interest in knowing and it makes little difference.

What you do know, and should feel free to say, is that you don't know of evidence for, or reason for faith about, what someone else believes. Saying that, vs saying that there's no evidence, or no reason for faith--Those are two different kinds of statements. — Michael Ossipoff

Basically all I have ever said is that I have never heard convincing evidence to support peoples religious beliefs. What they want to believe is their problem. I leave it to them to explain, if they want to, why they believe.

A little humility and modesty would be good, and that's something missing from our aggressive-Atheist brothers. — Michael Ossipoff

For someone that takes it upon himself to preach to others about sinning you might consider taking your own advice once in a while.

But I like your last paragraph, quoted above. — Michael Ossipoff

Thank you.

:victory: Peace brother.

P.S.

I have not been a good man in this life. — Noah Te Stroete

How do you know he is not a mass murderer, or worse?

I hope he is not and that he does find peace.

Sir2u, at these forums, has a history of attacking religion and arguing for Atheism, and the above-quoted passage is just another such attack. ...but, this time, taking the form of mocking.

Maybe Sir2u wants to show that there's no bottom-limit to his conduct. — Michael Ossipoff

I have never attacked anyone for their religion. If you think that way you must have some proof of what you are saying, lets see the post where I insulted or attacked someone because of their religious views.

I did not mock him, all I did was tell him the truth according to the bible. If that is a sin then sue me. It is not a question of whether I believe or not in religion but whether he does. If he believes in the words of the bible s he says then by admitting his sins he will be saved.

Not many would get in Sir2u's boat. — Michael Ossipoff

You would be the loser then. Or maybe you did not understand the usage of the phrase? Being in the same boat means being in the same situation, in this case I said basically that most of us have done bad things and will probably do more bad things. You can deny that if you want, but you are probably in the same boat whether you like it or not.

But yes, aggressive Atheists are undeniably tiresome. — Michael Ossipoff

How would you define Aggressive Atheists? I always considered then to be the ones that go around preaching to others that their way is best. I really don't like them much either, they are no better that any other religion trying to get converts.

Things worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.

You are blessed brother for admitting your sins, all is forgiven.

Go in peace.

We are nearly all in the same boat, so don't sweat it too much.

So turn you house into apartments and you will be able to live individually while at home. If you ever leave the apartment can be rented out to bring in extra cash.

I am a professor in shmanciology. If you would like to learn more about it, I invite you to attend one of my upcoming lectures on the shmubject. There will of course be a shmall fee: shmomewhere in the ballpark of between £10,000 and £15,000. — S

Maybe I could help with proofreading here.

I am a professor in shm-logy. The correct name of the subject.

If you would like to learn more about it, I invite you to attend one of my upcoming lectures on the subject shmubject.

There will of course be a small shmall fee:

somewhere shmomewhere in the ballpark of between £10,000 and £15,000.[/quote]

Remember that the use of shm is to duplicate a word already used in a way that does not use the exact same word. Fancy talking if you want a simple name. And you are allowed to use words that begin with a letter that is not S.

Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
I rest my case. — S

Err, and just what was your case?: It must have slipped my mind.

On Sabbatical leave as from midnight tonight. — Amity

Is that what they say when they are going to the pub where you live?

Tell your mom to sell the house and find a place for both of you to live where no one knows you or your problems. Your environment is a constant in everything you do so a change will probably help to break the cycle.
If you could find a smaller house and convert it to 2 apartments you would have the best of both worlds and be able to make friends with new people as well.

If you had to give a definition or clarification on your theory of Happiness what might it be ? — Amity

I don't really have a theory of happiness, just some personal thoughts about it.

They say that you cannot buy happiness, but your wife is probably unhappy when you forget to buy her a present.
Is unhappiness not buying stuff?

They say that happiness grows over time, why are there so many divorces then? Does marriage make people unhappy?

Bars have Happy Hours, is getting drunk going to make you happy.

Restaurants have Happy Meals so kids can get fat and die an early death from heart problems. Does giving your kids that shit make Mom and Dad happy? Of course it does if it makes the kiddies happy and keeps them quiet for ten minutes.

Who the hell knows what happiness is, except of course for "S" and he is keeping his dictionary in the shit house so no one can see it.

Is happiness something that we can expect to be only temporal or should we expect it to be long lasting?
How do you measure happiness, by quality, by length of time, by degrees?

I keep it in my shrine. — S

The outhouse?

Who is this 'us' ? You mean yourself as in acting a bit of a schmuck. — Amity

Oh dear. You do not understand sarcasm at all do you. And irony also seems to be missing for your understanding abilities.

First of all it is customary around here to provide ones usage, definition, of words that are not necessarily standard. I have not found Shmancy in any of the philosophy books I have read so I asked for it to be explained. As you yourself said basic definitions are necessary to start a discussion. I don't go to Wikipedia for definitions either.

Second, calling someone a schmuck is not an example of Shm-reduplication, it is an insult.
schmuck - (Yiddish) a stupid, foolish or annoying person
Which would probably be more applicable to a person that uses "fancy schmancy" in what is supposed to be a serious discussion.

Shmancy works just fine in context. — Amity

The context is him making fun of the words you use, so I guess you should know whether it works fine or not. :smirk:

Either way, you will still need to define what you mean by being or doing 'happy' or 'Happiness'.
I like the specific focus of your suggested discussion. Specifics, like that, could arise or spin off from unpacking the general definition of Baden:The definitions were only to be there as a starter.
What do you think ? — Amity

While Baden's definition is sort of fitting for some discussion, it is rather first person. It is about how one becomes happy, not how one makes others happy.

Fancy-shmancy. :wink: — S

Could you please give us a workable definition of "shmancy", I cannot find it anywhere. And I know that you really like to provide people with the definition of words that are not in common use. Where can I find that dictionary you use?

I'd like to see a discussion about happiness that deals with two main approaches, namely materialism vs meaning, with participants arguing which is better or is more likely to lead to happiness. — praxis

That is closer to my original idea about what makes people happy than trying to find better ways to explain what exactly happiness is. We know already, thanks to "S", the definition of happiness so lets look at the good and bad of making people happy.

Example:
Is it correct(moral) to give a 16 year old a shotgun for his/her birthday if it makes her/him happy?

Wait. How dare you? — S

I would not like to get called out (again) for assuming something I cannot prove, so I figured that if you don't fit into one or more of those three I could always just call you "anything else present".

My pronouns are ze/zir. — S

Is that the equivalent of I/me, him/her or just some more bullshit?

Did you read the thread? That was a lot of fun. :cool:

He/she/it does not like any of my questions.

And he never answers them either.

Not that I give a rat's ass about it anyway.

For example, we do not say statements like ''there is rain'', rather we say ''it is raining'', as if there is some subject, ''it'', to which the predicate ''raining'' can be attached. — philosophy

In some languages you do say there is rain.

The absurdity of this becomes clearer with a statement like ''lightning flashes'', since there is no distinction here between the subject ''lightning'' and its predicate ''flash''. — philosophy

''lightning flashes'' could be a clause or phrase or even a subject but never a statement.

This would depend on context.
The lightening flashes across the sky. It is obvious which is the subject.

There are lightening flashes in the sky. Nothing confusing about that either.

In other words, going back the example I started with, does Aristotle posit the existence of substance because that is how the world really is like, or does the world appear to have substances because of the way Aristotle uses language? — philosophy

If Aristotle was not already substance, how could he posit anything?

Meh. I think I already know what happiness is, so I don't need other people telling me what they think it is. I don't even need to put it into words, least of all fancy-shmancy words. — S

I know you don't need to do it, but you could at least put it into plain, ordinary, simple words so that the rest of us might have an idea what you think.

You're conflating pleasure with happiness. — Baden

That is one point of view, but I am not mixing them up. It is more of a cause and effect thing. Isn't pleasure a source of happiness?

Pleasure;
A fundamental feeling that is hard to define but that people desire to experience
Something or someone that provides a source of happiness

I don't remember who, but someone once said something along the lines of happiness being a larger part of pleasure and a smaller part of pain. Or something like that. It was so long ago that I did any serious reading.

Another possible question for discussion.

Is it ethical for people to produce mind numbing TV programs to entertain the masses just so that they can earn large amounts of money?

Let me think about it, I might create it. The only problem is that I probably wont be around for the next week or so because of work.

If someone else thinks it is worth doing, let them go ahead. Now the ideas have started coming maybe S would care to have a go at it. :smile:

So you want to know why people are masochistic? — Purple Pond

If being sadistic or masochistic makes them happy but revolts others, how can there be a proper definition of happiness? Is there even such a thing as happiness or is it just the absence of things that bother us.

I think a worthy topic of psychology, but is it of any philosophical significance? — Purple Pond

If you ask this question, then there is something to discuss. It is part of human existence, is happiness necessary for a fruitful life? Are there ethical sides to being happy?

Let's take another example of happiness. How many people do you know that can sit for hours watching soap operas on the TV are are happy doing so. Is it because their brain is incapable of processing higher level stuff? I don't think so, my wife does it when she is not working or studying.

Definitions explain what things are, not why they are.

Why are you so obsessed with spanking? — Purple Pond

I am not, I am obsessed with happiness and I would like to understand why or how being hurt can make people happy.

I don't understand your bafflement. There are plenty of examples where one action hurts a person while it benefits the other. A cruel person is happy to make an unfortunate person shriek with pain when spanking them. — Purple Pond

When you are happy being spanked and your partner is happy spanking you it is not the same as one hurting another.