No. — creativesoul

So what is it about then?

quote="creativesoul;183940"] .All things one wants to hide ought be protected under privacy?[/quote]

Personal relationships including private family matters, yes of course. It is nobody else's business.

.

This makes no sense whatsoever. — creativesoul

We are supposedly all "equal under the law". What is there not to understand about that? An agent of the government has no right to ask you anything about your personal and consensual arrangements and certainly not expect answers to such inappropriate questions.

Would you like an agent of the government to demand such answers from you?

The thread is about how the public narrative affects/effects the public thought, belief, and subsequent action(s).

There's much to be said about government officials lying to the American people, including but most certainly not limited to cases of lying during a campaign in order to get elected. — creativesoul

It is therefore up to voters to decide. It is not a legal matter. Government agencies are not supposed to be partaking in partisan politics.

What constitutes committing fraud against the American people? — creativesoul

Well that will be a very long list. You may list these yourself if you wish.

"here", where nasty people are on, is called Planet Earth.

So yeah, they do get around.

It's the mind that makes categories, not the brain. — George Cobau

I can't agree with that. Was it my brain that disagreed, do you think?

On the subject inspired by the words "do you think?', is it not the brain that thinks?

After all, thinking is also categorizing.

Please explain how this may not be the case.

(merely attempting to get some answer again as I presume my post got lost among all the other posters)

yeah. She’s part of the identity politics problem. She doesn’t realise she is choosing to remain on the plantation or she knows and is getting her sense of power over others by attempting to reach the apex of the whole identity politics pyramid scheme.

It's the mind that makes categories, not the brain — George Cobau

I should have included your quote.

I can't agree with that. Was it my brain that disagreed, do you think?

On the subject inspired by the words "do you think?', is it not the brain that thinks?

After all, thinking is also categorizing.

Please explain how this may not be the case.

Since you introduced this into the matter, perhaps a video rebuttal of Don Lemon is appropriate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dltK5r4GBec

Are you saying that hopefully, in the next few decades, the tide will turn, and philosophers and scientists will come to YOUR senses?

I really think the brain will never know the mind because the brain relies on knowledge, and the mind will always escape any such brain-inspired confinements. Brains make categories. Brains compare. Knowledge is a process of comparisons and contrasts.

Well, an opinion of this brain anyway.

Well it may be quite reasonable to arm oneself for the purpose of self defense against those, that, because of their ignorance and unhappiness, may want to harm you.

That's just human life, really. One can be quite philosophical and thinking deeply while walking down the street, maybe even feeling happy, resolved and care free, and then some driver mounts a sidewalk shouting allahu akbar trying to take you out (and not to a restaurant), or any other cultural message they may want to convey.

So there's that possibility.

In terms of tyrannical governments these have always arisen in our human history, and one of the things they first do is take citizen's weapons away to make it less hazardous for them.

Essentially it's planet of the apes, this earth.

Do you want me to remain ignorant by keeping it a secret as to what these deeper issues are?

Do you think sharing important ideas might in fact help resolve these deeper issues you have?

I would have to know Berkeley, which I don't. I generally don't read philosophers.

Am I an idealist? Too much pain for that. If I was young and pain free while having the understanding I understand that perhaps I may have then maybe I would be an idealist.

No. I regard myself as a realist. I feel completely real about what I have said is me.

How did you know this about me? Was it in my name?

Deeper issues than all out war including civil war?

What are these deeper issues?

This "others".

Essentially I am not really aware of others. The only proof of I that I have is whatever the experience happens to be. Now I am not being deliberately tricky or just trying to seem intelligent. I am talking about what seems to me to be absolute indisputable fact, although you may dispute it if you want of course.

If you do dispute this then this still does not prove there is other than I. All that would have occurred is the experience, I, of some apparent dispute.

So "others" do not locate or define me. "Others" are the experience that is me. I cannot see how it can be otherwise.

I think there is a way to both escape racism and escape being a racist.

Just don't identify oneself as any race.

And if you come across someone who wants to define you as a race then merely regard them as either a bit unintelligent (thereby merely has particular limitations) or is just a bit silly.

It seems to me that we commonly regard the "non-physical" as being concepts. But concepts are physically heard even as thoughts.

So either everything is physical or nothing is. I lean towards nothing.

The tyranny factor, as pointed out in the 2nd amendment, should be what is paramount particularly when considering the very same powers that may wish to disarm you are the ones that lie about such things as weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein or arm militants to take out foreign leaders whom they disagree with on matters of money and general business just to create wars that kill masses of innocent lives.

I would argue also that current gun-control promotion within a civilized, policed, democratic society (unless you are a farmer), is merely a reflection of the limited intellectual capacity of the masses.

I can use the same idea, while still believing it within myself to be true of my character, and alter the sentence thus: "A minimum of two people involved in a discussion should at least agree on the definition of certain words before heading too far into a conversation, of maybe a particular matter", or, "A minimum of two people involved in a discussion should at least agree on the definition of certain words before heading too far into the discussion."

Does this change anything with regard to your response?

I accept the criticism.

I did say "crime" being prevented. Deaths will fall into that. I am not in the position of doing the survey. This is what existing surveys do. I am in no more of a position of conducting the survey as you are in constructing a television set from earth's raw materials. You, as I, rely on scientists and experts for that.

If my argument is well supported for 1995 then was it not a good idea for citizens to be armed in 1995?

Are you suggesting we are considerably more evolved in 2018 than in 1995?

Does this mean you are arguing that armed citizens are not stopping criminals committing crimes out of proportion to gun deaths?

Is that your argument?

Do you think taking all guns away from legal owners will reduce gun deaths?

Maybe you should state your argument to save me guessing.

Maybe choice 1 is the dreamworld. While I am technically asleep in my bed I usually have no perceptual thought arising informing the "dreamer" I am dreaming.

Isn't this also the case in so called "real life"?

"The point" is really the phenomenal difference between gun deaths and crime prevention by guns being either presented or used against a criminal carrying out a crime.

If the 1995 study holds any water then even if one halves it to 1,000,000 for 2018 the "the point" is still "The" point.

A minimum of two people involved in a discussion should at least agree on the definition of certain words before heading too far into a debate.

Good point. However, I doubt there are less criminals doing crimes in 2018 than in 1995 and I doubt there are less armed citizens in 2018 than in1995.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/91da/afbf92d021f06426764e800a4e639a1c1116.pdf

Is this a "What am I?" question?

Surely I can only be whatever the experience happens to be. Everywhere I go there I am.

The role of art is to have our brains entertained. It may invoke thoughts and/or feelings which then entertain us.

Ar you entertained by your thoughts and feelings? If not, why not?

What do we want? Dangerous freedom or peaceful slavery?

I prefer being armed.

Something like 2,000,000 criminals in the last year were stopped from carrying out a crime when they were confronted by an armed citizen of the US. Now compare that with gun deaths (or even the far greater amount of deaths caused by drivers on their cell phones).

Is this all about an alleged consensual sexual act between two adult people? Why does such trivia need to be so political?

What was that Stalinistic statement? Something like "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear"?

Well we do, and should, have things we should hide. It comes under the heading of 'Privacy'.

Everyone is, or should be, entitled to privacy where there is no harm to others. Was someone harmed by an alleged orgasm?

If a president must be seen as different than any other citizen, with regard to privacy and personal family matters, then the flip side is that he can also be different enough to be above the same laws as all those other citizens - and we shouldn't want that.

I though 'ego death' was the experience of dissolving into an experience of one sensation - a total connected sensation consisting of no other color other than white light and no experience of 3 dimensional objects, including what was one's presumed personal body, and therefore also no sense of time.

"Evil" is open to interpretation and personal opinion. Effectively, therefore, people can be regarded by other people as evil. It merely requires qualification by those who use the term. How it stacks against certain acts, etc.