If you're against any gun legislation, what is your proposed remedies to the issue of gun violence in America? — Buxtebuddha

I have never said that I am against gun legislation, what I have said is that I do not see how it will help as the people here are proposing to do it. A total blanket ban on arms will not work. It is not cost effective, it will not stop killings by people that want to kill, and as far as many people in the USA are concerned it is a violation of their rights. All of this has been explained in previous posts.

Gun controls should be focused on people that are obviously dangerous, criminals and mentally ill, and more money should be spent on preventing guns getting into their hands.

Nobody is doing that. — Michael

By saying that guns need to be banned you are saying that they are to blame for the deaths, that if they did not exist there would be no problems.

The legislature is quite capable of passing gun control legislation whilst scientific institutions look into how to prevent house fires. — Michael

The legislature is quite capable of passing legislation to pay for scientific institutions to look into why people kill each other. So why do they not do so?

Well, to say that the purpose of a gun is to shoot bullets is like saying that the purpose of a car is to burn fuel to spin wheels. It's nonsense. — Michael

If you say so.

That's how they behave, but their purpose isn't their behaviour. Their purpose is the primary use to which they were designed to serve. In the case of cars it's transport; in the case of guns it's killing and/or hurting people. — Michael

Guns are designed to shoot bullets, people decide whether to shoot at a target on a shooting range, a deer in the woods or people in the street. It is silly to blame an inanimate object for the behavior of people.

I ask again; so? — Michael

You say that you want to improve health and safety right, would it not make more sense to look at the things that cause more deaths each year first and solve those problems before moving on to the smaller stuff.

Do we then expect to fall back into that darkness or sleep? — frank

A rather poetical way of describing life and death, but yes that is basically what it is all about.

I don't know if this is supposed to be sarcasm. — Michael

A true statement is rarely sarcasm. People decide what to do with artifacts, they have no choice in the matter

Health and safety. — Michael

Health and safety of whom? More people are affected directly and indirectly by cigarettes, booze and drugs. And lets not forget the people killed in car crashes, house fires and industrial accidents.
Everyday sickness kill more people than guns.

Besides, I reject the premise that not being able to own a gun is a punishment. — Michael

Never said it was, but banning guns means that you have to take away the ones that do exist. And that is punishment.

There's an aspect of us that's unknown. Agree? — frank

There are lots of things we don't know.

That's why the suggestion is to ban people from possessing guns. :brow: — Michael

But why should all of the people be punished for the sins of the few?

Whereas the primary purpose of a gun is to kill and/or hurt people. — Michael

No, the primary purpose of a gun is to fire bullets. What the people do with them is something else.

I think that the fact that not too many people actually pick up a telephone to talk to their representatives in the local and national governments shows that the majority of the people have little interest in solving the problem. Or maybe they do not see it as a serious problem.

Dolphins are interesting? How so? Could you expand upon that a bit? — Sapientia

Way to go man.

That really does show how interested you are in having a serious discussion.

Wait a minute, does that answer fit the description of a strawman?

Ah, I see what you're doing. Let's see: do play dumb. — Sapientia

Banning guns is effective action? How so? — Sir2u

If you say that this is a strawman, then in some way it is supposed to be refuting an argument that you made by refuting something else instead. Exactly what is being refuted here?

But let's not get into discussing little things like this.

I think that your idea about there being some sort of condition or circumstances under which gun banning might be accomplished sounds interesting. Could you expand upon it a bit?

Can you tell me what the first definition is when you type "strawman" into Google? — Sapientia

No. I never use google.

And then, can you tell me what I said about how you phrased your strawman? — Sapientia

No, could you tell me.

And, can you tell me, what's a loaded question? — Sapientia

No, could you tell me.

Wrong. It was clearly a loaded question. Don't play dumb. My response is to recognise it as such. — Sapientia

Being a loaded question does not make it a strawman. But why do you think it is loaded?

I don't think I need to enlighten anyone here. We already know about American gun culture and factors which play into that, like the NRA. — Sapientia

No problem, you suggested that there might be "right circumstances" that would make it effective to ban guns so I thought that you might know what they were. Sorry about that.

If I have they correct definition of strawman

A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted.
A straw man argument is a rhetorical device that deliberately misrepresents and weakens the argument of the other side.
A straw man is a fallacy in which an opponent's argument is overstated or misrepresented in order to be attacked or refuted.

Then it was not a strawman because it was not even an argument.

Like that? — Lone Wolf

Yep, you got the hang of real quick.

Because we are depraved. — Lone Wolf

Speak for yourself young lady, I am just crazy. :lol:

Strawman phrased as a question. — Sapientia

Wrong, it is a simple question that needs a simple answer.

It would be effective, under the right circumstances. But the right circumstances would first need to be achieved, and that's where I'm interested in sensible and practical suggestions. — Sapientia

Simple and practical suggestions seem to be in short supply right now. Maybe knowing what the "right circumstances" are might help. Would you care to enlighten us about them?

More practical than banning people, but still incredibly impractical considering human nature, the history of humanity, recent widely reported events, the frequency of such events, and the likelihood that such events will continue to take place until effective action is taken. — Sapientia

Banning guns is effective action? How so?

A wise man accepts correction. — Lone Wolf

My favorite saying, or at least one of them.

If the truth hurts, it is time to change it.

It was meant in humor, nonetheless... — Lone Wolf

It usually is when followed by a funny little face, that's a dead give away. :wink:

But I do agree that if authorities would be enabled to disable those with a record of criminal activities, then future crime would be reduced. — Lone Wolf

More research needs to be done to try and find out why people feel the need to kill each other, the findings would probably apply to more than just guns and be more beneficial in the long run.

I suppose it depends how you said it. If you meant it as an insult, then no, it wouldn't be respectful. — Lone Wolf

But it would be hurtful, even if you said it with total respectfulness and honesty.

All people are evil. :yikes: — Lone Wolf

That is what you said, not me. :smile:

I just want the evil ones banning.

I seriously think it would be easier to pick up a couple of thousand people than several million guns, And there would probably be fewer complaints about it as well.

Everyone in the USA that wants guns banned should start calling their political representatives right now. And don't stop until you get the answers you want.

I have a dream,
that one day all people will be treated equally
that no one will be a racist, sexist, or even suffer from superiority complexes
that politicians will stop lying
that commercials will tell the truth
that people will stop using products that hurt the earth
that people will learn to read books again
etc, etc.

We all have dreams.
And nightmares.

Yeah. Ban people. :up: People are evil. — Lone Wolf

Well at least we could start by banning evil people.

And then the guns could live in peace. :victory:

Respect must be the act of esteeming a view or person, in the sense that the one who respects holds the other in high regards and supports/agrees with it. In order to respect, one must restrain negativity by means of rules constructed in tradition, refusing to inflict harm on the respected. — Lone Wolf

Would it be disrespectful to tell a person that has earned your high regards, that something he said was just plain stupid even if what he said was just plain stupid? I think it would be more respectful to tell them the truth even if it hurt.

I still don't understand why people fail to notice that without a person holding it, a gun is as dangerous as a paperweight. Get rid of the people if you don't want them killing each other with guns, or paperweights for that matter.

Neither are guns. — Thorongil

Right, guns are designed to shoot bullets that's all. They have no knowledge nor control of what people do with those bullets.

Out of the millions of guns in the USA, how many have actually been used for killing people? I really doubt that it is even 1%.

And no one even needs a truck to assault and kill people, any old car will do. Just look in the newspapers, it is happening more and more.

Probably not so well, but they do look kind of cool don't they?

I have a flat wall in an place that I am going use for a TV area, that would look nice around a flat screen.

I use the Russellian definition, which is one among other popular/standard philosophical definitions. — numberjohnny5

Interesting article.
"Like properties and particulars, states of affairs make up an ontological category — a fundamental kind of entity. At least, they seem to be so regarded by those philosophers who deploy this concept in philosophical explanations. Explicit recognition of states of affairs is relatively recent in philosophy. In the guise of facts, states of affairs entered center stage at the beginning of the 20th century in efforts of Bertrand Russell (Russell 1985) and Ludwig Wittgenstein (Wittgenstein 1961) to account for truth as a property of beliefs or sentences."

So, in light of these definitions, my view is that as facts/states of affairs aren't the same kind of thing as mental states — numberjohnny5

The article you referenced says,
"The justification for thinking there are states of affairs could thus be regarded as abductive, that is, as a kind of inference to the best explanation. This kind of inference can be evaluated along a number of dimensions — Is the data real or bogus?"

How can any form of inference or evaluation not be mental.

"The Combination Argument

Both Bertrand Russell and G. E. Moore came to hold that the only states of affairs that there are are facts -- states of affairs that obtain. Various passages in their writings suggest an argument for this conclusion, based on the compositionalist conception of states of affairs. For example:

We are not now hearing the noise of a brass-band; and we all, I think, can understand the nature of the fact which I express by saying we are not. What these words imply is that there simply is no such thing in the Universe as our being now hearing that particular kind of noise. The combination of us at this moment with hearing of that particular kind of noise is a combination which simply has no being. There is no such combination. (Moore 1966, pp. 277-278)

We can call this the "combination argument" (Wetzel 1998). If we consider (1)

(1) this wall's being dark green

this state of affairs would simply consist of this wall exhibiting the color dark green, on the compositionalist view. For there to be such an entity, this connection must hold between the wall the color since the state of affairs simply is the connecting of the wall to the color dark green.

In arguing for states of affairs, Gustav Bergmann (Bergmann 1964) and D. M. Armstrong (Armstrong 1997) appeal to an argument of the following sort:

The constituents of (1) are, let us say, the wall surface and the color dark green. How is (1) differentiated from the mere collection of these constituents {this wall, being dark green}, or the mereological sum of those constituents, this wall+being dark green? Presumably the constituents might exist even if they were not so connected. But if the constituents of (1) could exist even if (1) did not, then (1) cannot be reduced to simply the collection or mereological sum of its constituents.

The combination argument shows that this conclusion is inconsistent with the existence of possible but non-obtaining states of affairs, as follows:

(B1) For a basic state of affairs of the form a's-having-F, a's-having-F exists when and only when exemplification connects a to F.

(B2) If a is connected by exemplification to F, then a's-having-F obtains.

(B3) Hence, a's-having-F exists only if it obtains.

(B4) Since this could be generalized to other ties connecting constituents to form states of affairs, there are no non-obtaining states of affairs.

The combination argument assumes that exemplification is the connection that accounts for the unity (and thus existence) of a basic state of affairs of the form a's-having-F. The argument also assumes that exemplification is the connection that accounts for the obtaining of a basic state of affairs of the form a's-having-F. Clearly, the soft actualist cannot agree with both assumptions.

At this point a soft actualist compositionalist might appeal to the following distinction. Let us say that the connection among the constituents of a state of affairs that accounts for the existence of that state of affairs is the constitutive connection for that state of affairs. And let us say that the connection among the constituents of a state of affairs that accounts for the obtaining of a state of affairs is the actualization connection for that state of affairs. In the Tractatus Logico-philosophicus Wittgenstein says: "Form is the possibility of structure." (Wittgenstein 1961, p. 13) Wittgenstein appears to be differentiating the constitutive and actualization connections of states of affairs. The "structure" (such as exemplification) is the actualization connection. The possibility of such structure being realized is the constitutive connection. The possibility of this wall surface being dark green is the constitutive connection that is necessary and sufficient for the existence of (1), on this view. Thus, a soft actualist who views states of affairs as compositional can use this distinction to escape the conclusion that there are no non-obtaining states of affairs. Exemplification must hold between the constituents of a's-having-F for this state of affairs to obtain, but a different tie accounts for the existence of that state of affairs. Soft actualism thus requires two primitives where hard actualism can get by with one."

This is the continuation of some of Russell' ideas. It seems to imply that there must be some sort of perception for there to be a state of affairs. He also pointed out that states of affairs are facts, not that facts are states of affairs.

I'm using the standard philosophical definition of "fact". — numberjohnny5

Where did you get this definition? Please give me the link to it, unless it is Wikipedia.

yeeks! :worry:

All of that work.

Is there a way to edit posts on here I don't know about? — Johnny Public

Click on the bottom of the post and some dots should appear, click on the dots and a pencil will appear.

http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/sentences/free-diagramming-sentences-worksheet.html

http://teachingsquared.com/language-arts-worksheets/grammar-worksheets/sentence-diagramming-worksheets/

https://www.english-grammar-revolution.com/english-grammar-exercise.html

Notice that Australia isn't even shown. It hadn't been discovered yet. — T Clark

It is down in the right hand corner. Hiding like all shy Aussies. :wink:

If we are not perceiving/experiencing some X, then we cannot make claims about some X. In other words, we have to have some experience of some X to be able to claim some X exists or to make particular claims about aspects of some X. Is that right? — numberjohnny5

Yes, it is not possible to make claims about anything that no information exists for.

Information about some X is knowledge obtained from some X. That seems to be saying that making claims about some X is impossible without experiencing some X. Is that right? — numberjohnny5

Not exactly. while it is true that information about anything has to come from the source, the object itself provides us with the information, if no one has any information about something then no one can make any claims about it.

If so, the issue I'm trying to resolve is not about making claims about some X. The issue for me is whether experiencing some X and making claims about some X is necessary for some X to obtain/exist. — numberjohnny5

If absolutely no information about X exists no one can make claims about whether it exists or not, it might or it might not exist. Could you give me an example of something that exists but that we have no information at all about? Our knowledge or lack of it has nothing at all to do with somethings exists, there are zillions of things out there in the universe that no one knows about but nobody can claim that they exist.

The "obtaining" of a state of affairs just means the actual happening/occurring/existence of a fact/event. But you don't seem to think that facts happen unless they're known about.

"Obtain" means exist/happen. — numberjohnny5

I think you should get a dictionary.
So where does the "obtaining" part fit in, is it not the gathering, collecting, acquisition of knowledge? Is there a definition of obtaining that I do not know? What is the definition you use?
Events might happen, as I have already said, but an event is not the same as a fact. And unless you can find some way to prove that they are the same then there is no way to continue. I cannot agree to them meaning the same thing.

I'm saying that some X/that particular X you experienced didn't actually/ontologically just appear/begin-to-exist just when you or because you observed/experienced it. — numberjohnny5

I have never said it did. That is why one says that one observed an event, because one is watching it happening. They happen simultaneously, it would be impossible for the "looking at it" to make it happening.

When I talk about "facts" I'm making existence claims. Facts obtain/occur/happen/are/etc. So I'm saying some facts exist that we don't know about to support my claim that objective facts don't rely on minds to exist. That objective facts are mind-independent. (Subjective facts are mental facts.) — numberjohnny5

I cannot accept your use of the word fact to include the unknown. Something that is unknown cannot be a fact. Please mention just one unknown fact and I will agree with you that it is possible. The tell me an objective fact.

It wouldn't be a true proposition about a particular, actual unknown or un-experienced fact/event. — numberjohnny5

If it is not a true proposition about a particular object, event then it cannot be a fact.

How could you claim that if you have no information/experience/knowledge about those unknown things? That's the argument you're using against me! You're contradicting yourself. — numberjohnny5

Simple deduction my friend, if there was nothing unknown in the universe then nothing new would be discovered, but as we see every day new things are being discovered thus there are still unknown things in the universe. But that might change tomorrow if they fail to find anything new.

Do you believe in past facts? — numberjohnny5

Anything, even things in the past that have been certified as a fact remain a fact while the circumstances about the fact remain the same. When they were declared facts they were actual states of affair, or evidence of them still exists to prove that they were facts. Archeologists dig up past facts all the time, even if they don't know what they are.

How can something actual not be happening? — numberjohnny5

Who said it could not?

I'm a Heraclitean, in that sense. — numberjohnny5

That sounds interesting.

Or you're using "facts" in a different way to me; — numberjohnny5

No, you are using it incorrectly.

I wouldn't say "facts are information" because that's a category error. — numberjohnny5

Not in my dictionary.
Fact; A piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred

Rather, I'd say information as knowledge is factually a mental event, since knowledge occurs in minds. — numberjohnny5

And you would, and do have it wrong. The only part that you have right is that it occurs in the mind.
Knowledge; The psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning.

Many people claim to have knowledge of god, can anyone prove it to be a fact.
Lots have people have been walking around with the erroneous knowledge that screwing standing up stops a woman from getting pregnant. That was the result of perception, learning and reasoning. But a lot of them still get pregnant because it is not a fact.

Person A: "That cup is an object".
Me: "That Earth preexisted us is a fact". — Sapientia

Sorry to butt in here, but yes it is easy to see why there is confusion.
In the first sentence "that" is used as a pronoun.
In the second it is used as a conjunction.

Maybe that is why you are confused.

You responded with an opinion, based on a handful of expat Americans whose opinion you sought, that Americans don't want to pay for gun control. I suspect your opinion is mistaken. — andrewk

You responded with your opinion, based on who knows what. I suspect your opinion is mistaken.

This question was answered in my antepenultimate post. — andrewk

OK.

The building is beautiful, but with domes I'm always asking myself how I could stack all my boxes against a curved wall. — T Clark

By making curved shelves. The difference between one end and the other over a six foot shelf would not be too much. You would just have to learn to stack the big ones in the middle.

My computer screen, waiting to see if it does anything interesting.

And just how much are you certain about? Are you ever going to be certain about everything?

Try naming things that you are not certain about.

Now try naming things you are certain about.

Which is the bigger list?

"The only thing you can be certain of is that you cannot be certain of anything" — Yadoula

Look at the things around you, are they really there? Can you prove that they are?