No, I have the gall to talk about you in plain sight. :grin: — Sapientia

That is nice to know.

In the context of ethics, it's the opposite. — Sapientia

Ethics based on emotions are not ethics. Emotions are mostly irrational and very subjective that would render any system based on then as mostly useless when really needed.

Don't care about much these days lol — Lone Wolf

Down in the dumps are we. Cheer up mate, it ain't all bad, or at least it ain't supposed to be. Smile and be happy. :grin:

You can suggest that I'm reading too much into it, but I don't think that my interpretation was way off the mark. — Sapientia

Are you talking about me behind my back? :cool:

Apparently I wasn't the only one who took it that way, and his subsequent reply seems to align with such an interpretation. — Sapientia

Birds of a feather and all that I suppose could explain it maybe.

A remark like that in the context of a discussion like this is going to come across in the way that I described: unmoved, casual, indifferent... — Sapientia

A person that discusses from emotional points of view rarely make any real sense.

Tis the art of inquisitive sarcasm. Makes a lot of people flustered. — Lone Wolf

Bollocks. You, just like me, wanted to know what the hell he was talking about.

Why? — Lone Wolf

I spent 4 days thinking about a the perfect answer to that, and then you beat me to it. :lol:

How long does it take you to type all this crap stuff? — CuddlyHedgehog

That would depend entirely on the quantity and quality of the crap stuff sir.

Could I get you anything else?

To my way of thinking, the value of the ideas does not depend on the truth of the stories in which they're told. — tim wood

So then, most of the ideas could have been expressed in simple forms? So what was the point of making it so complex that you need a book called Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible to be able to read correctly?

This is what has always baffled me about the bible.
God creates a guide book for his people, or at least inspires them to collect the information and put it all together.
People are supposed to use it to live a decent life and know how to serve him.
But no one really agrees about the meaning of the rules that it lays out because it is translated from several different language that one really agrees about the meaning of the words used.
Now I understand that the world has changed a lot since the bible was written, but surely a god would have known that it would happen and try to give something that would last for a while.
If god had really intended to help his people would it not have been easier to stick with the twenty commandments and avoid the confusion?
In short, why the hell would a god want to create something that would cause all sorts of problems for his people?

What difference does it make? Granted it's a question that can be asked - you asked it! But it's not relevant to the meaning. Note that the same question is asked of the The Iliad, The Odyssey, the works of Shakespeare, etc. — tim wood

Yes, I guess you are right. It is no different from other books.

My own guess is that many of the ideas - the significant ones, anyway - in the Bible have roots in pre-Ur history. — tim wood

Goodness gracious, would that not mean that some of the bible might actually be more than 5,000 years old?

No. it's a book that lists all the words and their meanings in English. — tim wood

My apologies, I should have said " a book that helps explain the bible". Obviously by giving meanings to the words.
But that does not answer my question about why they put all of the pieces together in such a way so to make into the bible. What was their motivation? Why did they leave pieces out at the beginning? Why did the add new pieces and remove pieces later on?
I mean if the damn thing is supposed to be holy and god inspired, did the people not understand the instructions about how to put it together? Was it left to them by god to create the perfect word of god? How could god inspire a book for his people that only a few would even be able to read and understand, giving them a monopoly on interpretations about his holy words?

I think your first comment got it right, it is a work of historical fiction.

That explains the behaviour of many priests. — CuddlyHedgehog

If the truth be known, most.

being there is person is the only way. — charleton

Yes I guess it would, if you are rich enough to be able to.

I am not. So I make do. :wink:

It's about decency. — andrewk

So now it is indecent to say what you think?

If there is an issue that literally affects the ability of others to survive, and you don't take it seriously, the decent thing to do is stay out of it. — andrewk

I never said that I did not take it seriously, I asked simply why I should do so. I got no answer. Nothing implied that I was not doing so except

Such a blasé attitude to a deadly serious issue. — Sapientia

I found a statue somewhere in Africa, no idea where I was visiting, called the Fetish Priest. Thought that was kind of funny.

My honest answer is that over time various creative people made the scripture up -- everything from "In the beginning..." down to the Apocryphal books. They sat there, composed in their heads, and then delivered well-honed texts at the appropriate time. — Bitter Crank

And then the churches got hold of them and saw the opportunity to become the bosses in the name of the lord, Amen.

Just like people used to be able to find their way around the block before GPS devices were put in cars. — Bitter Crank

On a side and rather irrelevant note, I have been using google maps and street view to visit my childhood homes and schools. I have amazed myself by being able to actually find my way around by memory to some of the places I used to go to. And not by remembering all of the names and addresses but by remembering locations.

What would be good enough would be to simply keep quiet about it, — andrewk

Do you think I should not be allowed to join in the discussion? Do you think that me being quiet will change anything. If you don't agree with me being allowed to say what I think, maybe you should stop reading my posts.

and let others that take the massacres seriously, — andrewk

So their taking things seriously and making serious posts will make a difference?

and [let] those who live there and have to deal with the threat of ubiquitous guns daily, get on with trying to reduce the problem. — andrewk

Is that not what I just said? Does not seem like they are doing such a good job of it so far though does it.

I don't think that's much to ask. — andrewk

You can ask all you want, you might not get what you asked for though. In case you have not noticed this is a discussion about the gun problems in the USA, not a congressional committee meeting to decide on the future of people's lives in the USA. Whatever is said here makes no difference to what happens there, unless you have some brilliant plan to save the day obviously.

I think you too should take a reality pill and go lie down till it starts to take effect.

Such a blasé attitude to a deadly serious issue. There's no "maybe" about it. There's no "who knows". A metaphorical shrugging of the shoulders simply isn't good enough. — Sapientia

Why should I get serious about it, I don't live there and neither do you for that matter. It makes absolutely no difference to my life what ever happens there. But what do you think would be good enough? Should I start campaigning to have guns outlawed in the USA. Should I write letters to everyone I know begging them to join the campaign? Or should I mouth useless blathering on an internet forum hoping someone will stop the killings?
Stop being pompous and join reality.

The United States needs tighter gun controls, which means tougher laws, and it needs it now, or it risks yet more preventable tragedies taking place. — Sapientia

So I ask again, what laws are needed, how are they going to be enforced.

You have just got to love street view. Anyone now can say that they have seen so many places.
I am adding this one to my list of museums, parks, zoos and other interesting places to visit on street view.

But that isn't the question I was addressing. I said "the Jews never stopped reading their sacred work". — Bitter Crank

Does the continuity of fake news make it real?
While I agree that I exaggerated a bit with the 10 thousand years, the idea is still valid. No one today knows where any of the bible really came from. I am not talking about the books themselves, that is well documented in many cases. But the ideas contained in them, where do they really come from?

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible is a book that explains the bible, but what purpose did the people that wrote it have, can we ever be sure that it was not to try and convince everyone that the bible is true?

I think tough penalties. I may watch too many movies, but I am under the impression that criminals in England do in fact fit their behaviour to the laws, in respect of the use of guns in committing crimes. — tim wood

In England maybe it has been so, until recently they are seeing an increase in gun killings. But the main conversation here is about the USA.

As you say there are tough penalties in place for gun crimes, but they have not stopped them from happening. Maybe tougher laws are needed, who knows. An eye for an eye might work out better that prison, and a lot cheaper too. The price of a bullet or two against a life of relative ease in jail might be worth considering.

When I click on the reference link in the post it took me to the post containing the FBI links. Sorry if there is any confusion about it.

I agree that maybe the links did not lead to verified data, but how do you know that it is not true? Are you judging the book by the cover?

But while in mourning, you're also indifferent to the cause - after all, it was an accident, and the victims are dead. Fair representation? Or not? — tim wood

Or not. I think you missed the point.
It is not about anybody's indifference to the cause of death, that has little effect on the fact that they are dead. I would be just as pissed of if a water mains had bust and flooded the neighborhood to death.
But I would not be pissed off at the water mains or the bomb, that would be stupid. I would be pissed at the stupid fucking parents that let there kids play with a bomb and the idiots that fail to give proper maintenance to the water pipes. And the same goes for the gun

That much power calls for controls. — tim wood

Have I disagreed with this anywhere?

The notion that, "Oh well, it can't be helped," is plain wrong. It can be helped, if for no other reason than to take to heart the lesson, and learn. — tim wood

I have said as much on several occasions.

One solution is outright banishment - which imo is not - cannot be - right. — tim wood

I think like you, probably could never happen. But if it was going to happen it would have to start with all of the illegal arms used by criminals. No idea how that could happen.

Better mandatory controls and mandatory training. This I reckon you'd agree with - but gun nuts in the US cannot even tolerate the discussion. — tim wood

Control and training would I agree help. But it still leaves the biggest problem unsolved.

WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO TRAIN THE CRIMINALS?

It's not just the errors. It's the credibility of the source. The first link was from an egregiously pro-gun site. The second is from a site campaigning against abortion. — andrewk

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-11
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-12

Did you go to the pages to see? Because it says FBI.gov there somewhere.

There is never any point in sourcing statistics from such places. If you see something on such a site and want to know if it's true, go see if you can find corroboration on a credible, unbiased site like BBC, Australian ABC, or some government agency that is not involved in propaganda. — andrewk

So I have to go to the BBC to check out the FBI? Actually I got the links to the FBI from the BBC.

Well, you are confused. If you were shot, would you call that a violence to your person? — tim wood

I would not call it a violent crime if I shot myself. It might be violent, but I do not think killing myself because I want to is a crime. And I would certainly like to see anyone arresting me for killing myself.

Do you begin to see how confused this gets? — tim wood

No. There is nothing confusing at all about it. At least from my point of view.

And if the death is accidental, it doesn't make any difference how the person died? Come on! Jimmy, four years old, gets daddy's gun and shoots Tommy, age three, to death. Cause of death doesn't matter? Are you kidding? — tim wood

Jimmy, four years old, bumps into Tommy, age three, while laying at the top of the stairs and Tommy falls to his death.
Very unfortunately Tommy is dead either way. But both were accidents caused by;
1. Ignorance on the part of the participants
2. Stupidity on the part of the parents for not taking adequate safety precautions.

Does it really matter how Tommy died?

Are you suggesting that guns are not part of the problem? — tim wood

No I am not, and have never said that. But read your own words, "part of the problem". Does it really make sense to place the blame on an inanimate object? Would that not be like blaming the pen for the bad accounting?

Most thinking people in the US think that there are times and a places for guns, and for certain kinds of guns in those times and places. A hunting rifle in the country might be legally defensible (morally is an entirely other question). But not in a big city. On the other hand, it seems unreasonable to ban hunting rifles. Solution: registration and controls. — tim wood

Don't registration and controls already exist? I am sure I read somewhere that most states have at least some of these.

You go to the trouble of being a legal gun owner; do you have any objection in principle to your gun ownership being subject to control (not asking if it's inconvenient - that's likely a given). — tim wood

I have no objection at all to most forms of control. But when someone tells me I cannot retain my legal gun while they are doing little to control illegal weapons I will not be very happy.
Most of the weapons that are used in crimes are not legally owned and registered, so why should anyone be allowed to fuck around with the ones that are.

A good part of it falls under the categories of exegesis and hermeneutics. — tim wood

And who decides what is right and wrong interpretation of the bible and based on what do they decide?
No one alive today or even 19 centuries ago had a lot of first hand knowledge of the people that wrote the different books of the bible. So how would they know the actual purpose of the writing? It is easy to say that it is explained in the bible, but for all of my reading it I have never found a place in it that says "I am writing this to explain a certain situation". That is why it has to be interpreted by other people, because it is not clear what it means.

In short, understanding the Bible is a lot of work. If you don't do the work, then you cannot really criticize it. The best you can do is criticize your own imperfect understanding of it. And this is true of any difficult text - the Bible is not special in this respect. — tim wood

Why should a simple book that purports to be a guide for good living need specialized help to understand it? Did god not want his people to understand him? That sounds like a bad idea for a god.

For example, to dismiss the Bible because of its cosmology in Genesis ("In the beginning, God created...") is pretty much a demonstration of ignorance, and inability or unwillingness to read a book.

Btw, I have been such an ignorant person for most of my life.Now I just try to read books, including the Bible to see if I can understand what they say. Attitude can make a difference! — tim wood

I do not dismiss the bible just for that, it is actually quite a good book. I have read it several times but as with many of the thousands of books I have read, I do not try to hard to retain content.
I dismiss the bible for the purpose it is serving. It is a collection of writings from ancient times that can only be "proven" by cross referencing it with other selected document while ignoring other documents that fail to agree with it. It is used to control the people that serve it and most of the time to make rich a few that promote it. Billy Graham being a good example of that, but there are many more on the list.

I read books, I ponder their meanings or validity, I might discuss them sometimes.
I read almost any kind of writing, my wife has even complained that I sometimes pay more attention to the cornflakes box than to her, which is not true of course.

The Jews never stopped reading and using their sacred writings. — Bitter Crank

But did the Jews actually write it directly from the source they claim or copy it from somewhere else?
There are plenty of creation myths about and some contain elements similar to the one in the bible.

The Old Testament contains at least a dozen creation “stories”. Two of these stories are told in Genesis 1 and 2, in addition to the creation story in Job 38 and the fragment in Job 26:7-13 among others. These stories are not always consistent with each other, so some will hold similarities to contemporary creation myths, while others contain contrasts.

https://graecomuse.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/in-the-beginning-biblical-creation-myths-vs-others-around-the-mediterranean/

Creation stories from the ancient Middle East:

Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre writes that one of his articles:

"... is an attempt to briefly identify some of the Ancient Near Eastern Motifs and Myths from which the Hebrews apparently borrowed, adapted, and reworked in the Book of Genesis (more specifically Genesis 1-11).

It is my understanding that Genesis' motifs and characters, God, Adam, Eve, the Serpent, and Noah, are adaptations and transformations of characters and events occurring in earlier Near Eastern Myths. In some cases several characters and motifs from different myths have been brought together and amalgamated into Genesis' stories.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/com_geba.htm

A lot of the old testament could quite easily be a historical narrative of actually events that have had god smeared over them for someone's convenience. As Tim points out in his post,

Books like the Bible - the Bible really is a special case - weren't just thrown together willy-nilly. Smart people wrote/compiled them - what they mean is not-so-easy to get. — tim wood

But my question has always been "why?"
Can anyone prove that they compiled the bible according to god's commands or that it is exactly as he said it should be? Surely if god had order the compiling of the bible he would not have let it be revised and edited along the years, it would have been perfect as it was in the beginning.
And why would any god that wants his creation to believe in him make things so complicated that only certain people could understand him?

As I stated above we do not know the real purpose of the writings in the bible, we are only guessing that they mean what the churches tell us it means. And a lot of them do not even agree on that.

I am in possession of a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. It takes hebrew and greek words and lists which verses they occur in as well as containing a good dictionary (it lists approximate synonyms as well as what words the entry is derived from). It's a very large book. — yupamiralda

The problem with that is that you have no idea what the original books purpose were. It is fine and dandy to get a good translation of them, but what the actually mean we will probably never know. Ten thousand years from now, after the destruction and rebuilding of civilization a couple of times, they might dig up a collection of Harry Potter books and decipher the unreadable scrawling on the page. They might then conjecture that the people of our times had magical powers, simply because they have no idea why it was written.

But there's two more general remarks I want to make. First of all, Christianity works. I mean seriously, do you think it would be so popular if it didn't? — yupamiralda

Works for whom?
The rich ranks of the church maybe. Even the pope has a bitch of a time swallowing the "good life" those bastards live.
All of the poor people expected to donate their few spare coins to the church, just to keep those mentioned above.

The only way I agree that it works is as a control mechanism, to keep the riffraff in their places.

Tourists are not very reliable reporters. — yupamiralda

At least they will not be biased.

Fine. Do you see the problem? The accounting between gun deaths and violent deaths is getting confused, as well as confusing violent and violence. As in, gun deaths by accidental shooting don't count as gun deaths because they're not violent, taken as violence. — tim wood

I have never been confused about what is counted as a violent crime, and suicide has never been on that list, no matter how ugly it was. Because I cannot perceive the act of taking one's own life as any kind of a crime. Accidental deaths are simple accidental, it makes no difference at all how the person died.

Better - often necessary - to go back to the roots. What, exactly, happened? What, exactly, is the significance of what happened? What, exactly, do we want to do about it, assuming we give good answer to the first two questions? — tim wood

Now this is where I agree with you 100%. But not just with suicides, with all gun deaths. The problems, as I have stated many times is not necessarily the guns but the people that use them for whatever reason.

If a person is going to kill themselves does the method make any difference? Which is easier to obtain, a gun or a piece of rope. Maybe even any one of dozens of household products under the kitchen sink are easier to get than a gun.

Any decent logic-textbook listing of forms of fallacious argumentation will seem a playbook for pro-gun advocates. Indeed for advocates of any badness or evil. Which is too bad, because many issues entangled in the fuzzy thinking or vicious arguments of advocates actually could be argued on real merits, leading to real progress, even if in the form of reasonable compromise until folks get a better understanding. — tim wood

I am not an advocate for either side of the argument, I really don't care if people in the US are allowed to have guns or not. I have my legally owned and registered gun, but I do not live in the US, and I am glad I have it because it has been useful on a couple of occasions.
But what I don't like about the discussion of the problem in the US is that everyone just wants to blame the guns. Fallacious argumentation and fuzzy thinking abound on both sides, mainly due to lack of concrete evidence. Why do some people get upset about the discussions?

I have not seen a single realistic proposal for solving the problem yet.

The first thing that ought to catch your eye is his statistics: — tim wood

Actually what caught my eye was the numbers, not the percentages. As I said I have no idea how accurate they are, and I did not have any time to check them.
After looking for further information today it turns out that this is one of many copies of the article, some published by famous people on very popular social media sites. And it does seem that someone's math sucks, I wonder why no one has called the author out on it yet?

I think that he got something else wrong as well though. According to the FBI there were 16,470 murders where gun are stated as the weapon in the USA. His numbers only add up to about 12,000.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-11

As you say, the part about suicide seems about right depending on the source. They tend to vary a bit.

The numbers for the cities also appear to be near enough to accurate, again depending on the source.

One of the parts that interested me though was the mention of these cities having the strictest gun laws. Is this true? After looking for more information I have found no really conclusive evidence of it one way or the other. Trump got hammered for a statement about Chicago, but how reliable is the other sides information?
His statement about California and Alabama also appears to be true, but what are their laws really like?

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-12

And, oh yes, 900 accidental gun deaths don't count as violence. — tim wood

Not for me, it doesn't for the FBI either apparently.

Violent Crime:
Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses that involve force or threat of force.

No point in reading further. Only leaves the questions as to why, Sir2u, you bothered to bother us with this. — tim wood

Err, maybe to get some intelligent conversation about it. But then maybe I am asking for too much.

If I had stopped reading every book or article after finding an error in it I doubt that I would have read half of the things I have read.

And here is another link that probably wont interest anyone either.
http://www.romans322.com/daily-death-rate-statistics.php

Post some pics then. :wink:

Found an interesting article. Don't know exactly how accurate these numbers are, but they do seem to make it clear that gun controls wont help.

http://www.thinklikeacop.org/guncontrol.html

Depends on the mite. Some mites are 6 mm — Raven73

That would make it as big as many ants, but in the story it says

but the ant seems big to the mite. — Raven73

I jus gotta call BS on that one. :lol:

RIP Steven Hawkins.

Adult might are very small, only about 0.3 mm.

Is that visible to the human eye, or do people only see the symptoms of the infestation?

Most dictionaries include the same definition for sex and gender,

The properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles.

I all ways thought that people just used gender instead of sex because it sounds weird talking peoples "sex role" whereas "gender role" is OK. I think they still do, they just don't know it.

My minor way of contributing to this rebellion is to cross out the label 'Gender' whenever it appears on a form I am asked to fill in, and write next to it 'Sex'. Yeah, call me a dangerous radical, but somebody's got to do it. — andrewk

I remember some stupid form the embassy sent to all of the expats living around here, he got pissed of when someone wrote "yes please" as an answer to the question about sex. The next form had gender on it. I doubt he ever figured out who done it. He he.

The ant seems small to us, but the ant seems big to the mite — Raven73

Would they know about mites in those days?

Irony
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/03/07/kennesaw-gun-law-orig.cnn

He had better hope the jury isn't drawn from Yahoo user lists. — Bitter Crank

I am not sure about that, some of them, might force him to pay the teacher and ask the judge to put the idiot in jail to find out exactly what being traumatized really is.

I know that you specifically stated 17 year old SONS in your question, but in my opinion, the gender of the child shouldn't have any effect on our behavior in this instance. — Joe

But it does, most people tend to look the other way when it is a male don't they. They are more protective of the weaker sex.

Yes it is a great memory. EXCEPT when you wake up at 3:50 in the morning with the song banging away in your head and staying there for most of the day.
Funny thing was that on the way out of work I met a third grade teacher with a book under her arm. Yes, it was called "Puff the magic dragon" and it started the song rolling again.

I am a bit tired of letting it be, ya know? :naughty: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Try "Hey Jude".
It is longer but I find it more relaxing.

A few years ago I woke up with "Puff the magic dragon" running through my brain. What could that mean? Thinking about it though, it would be better suited to your situation actually. :wink: