I understand. Maybe there is a way to offer up a brief snapshot of the thesis you have that would fit within the character limit?

@Phamph
Welcome and Woo Hoo for us winning!
Enjoy the ride~

@allan wallace
Nanu Nanu,
Now that we have both aged ourselves Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
You are not by chance a blogger from Australia are you?
Cheers

@betsyforaer'
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
We are glad you are here~
Receiving negative feedback is not a problem. How you handle that negative feedback is what matters. Is it a fair opinion? Is it an idea that you didn't already entertain? Consider what the person is saying and respond or move on. Most importantly, don't take things personally unless they are said directly to you~

Im confused by your response. Are you worried about my well being or are you going against my point? — SherlockH

A little bit of both. If you had a Mom and/or a Dad that has taken the time to look out for your well being beyond what the government mandates then they already feel a fair degree of obligation to seeing you thrive in life, not just survive. Government's make sweeping decisions on the minimum amount a child needs "to be" in line with becoming a contributing member of society. And in doing so establishes what a Parent must provide but that is quite different than what a Mom or a Dad feels obligated to help with in raising their children.

First off the system is based on an ideal no one is by law required to follow. Fasfa is designed to help parents pay for a students college. Parents are not by any law required to do so — SherlockH

I hope you receive this response in the spirit in which it is being sent. Fafsa is designed for "parents" not for a set of people who have given birth to a child. For your own health or to lose the appeal to emotion, don't confuse a "parent" with a "Mom" or "Dad" because everything you list after your first couple sentences, are necessary life skills to teach and instill in your child which Mom's and Dad's do but not all "parents" feel obligated to do.

I've come to the conclusion it's more of a cultural thing though and isn't going to change in the foreseeable. — Baden

As I was mucking yesterday, I began to think about the changes we can make to help keep the legal guns, in the legal hands of adults. Real change takes time and we are changing, slowly but we are changing.

Since the Parkland school shooting there have been changes in gun control but it won't ever be recognized because without complete confiscation, there are people around the world that will not be content with what Americans have rights to. Fair?

I will mention the changes that have been made, though I doubt the moves will ever be recognized on the world stage and that is okay with me. I want to turn our eyes inward to better our nation and am tired of giving two bits of a shit of what works in other countries because you are right, it is a cultural thing, a living right and one that is protected as vigilantly as our right to freedom of speech. One that no matter how many changes are made it will never be enough. Is that because of the controls that others have on their own lives that they have to live by?

Two of the largest nationwide private companies that sell firearms to the public, voluntarily raised the minimum purchasing age from 18 to 21. Knowingly taking a loss from those who are responsible firearm owners for the sake of public safety.

Some private businesses cut ties with NRA customers that used to receive discounts as a result of being a NRA member. Private businesses cutting ties with prospective clients is not a way to succeed in a capitalistic society. Yet hotels, car rental businesses and other associated businesses that rely on loyalty programs cut ties to do their part in the control of guns being used in a nefarious way.

Ironically, the one change that will make a difference has been made in Florida and five other states and has nothing to do with stricter gun control. No, it is implementing the 'Red Flag' legislation that allows the temporary taking of guns and ammunition by law enforcement officers and family members from people who pose a risk and show warning signs of violent behavior.

Do you have any other ideas? I genuinely want to entertain them.

The pet food of the future? — Baden

Nah, feed them Ravens and let Poe or Schrödinger work it out.

OP, I think you are becoming a man. — Gord

Wise words~

Not a transaction, not a deal, but a gift. Love is what it's all about, it is an overflowing, it is a passion, the passion. Love is taking pains, and giving without consideration, it is not counting, and so unaccountable. It is what you need, and all you need. Don't expect to catch it in a thread, or limit it to definition. — unenlightened

This is beautiful~ This I love~ :heart:

@Gord
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
We are glad you are here!

Hiya MrMerk!
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Happy Birthday Hanover!
Everybody put your nose and tail in the air!!

But many gun owners aren't responsible. — Baden

That is a truer than true statement.

Is there a way to force them to be so short of threatening to take their guns off them? — Baden

I honestly don't know if there is "a" way because multi generations that have lived through different times than our current environment. So a multiple prong approach is necessary to address those underage, their parents and those elders who currently own firearms.

I think one of the best systems we have in place, which is voluntary and costs money, is to expose children to firearms in a controlled, safe and instructive environment. They are taught how to handle the finding of a firearm, they are made comfortable in informing an authority of the firearm, they are taught that firearms are not cool but are to be respected. They are taught such a different perspective than those who are not properly exposed. We have to teach our children to be leaders and not afraid to "tell someone" who can do something about it. See something, say something...is drilled into their psyche.

As far as those of us that are beyond our parents reach that have not been professionally trained? It's a crap shoot Baden. There are times when you can get adults to understand a new idea of how to look at things and then there are not. The adults willing to understand a new idea are not the same folks who leave their firearms/ammo or both unsecure.

It's a combination though isn't it? The last thing you need in a toxic bullying environment is easy availability of guns. — Baden

It is a nasty combination and one that can be reduced by responsible gun owners keeping their firearms locked up, securely held and our children properly trained in what to do when they see a gun, how to handle it and who to notify if you stumble across a firearm.

Bullying has been around forever and in the past, the two foes would meet outside afterschool, under the bleachers and it would be attended by many and there would be one victor and one loser.
Now? In the age of technology and shock tv, you get kids filming a brawl that will be cast worldwide if not in real time. Imagine the magnitude of that kind of bullying, bullying that spreads like wildfire on social media that leads to being ostracized.

The one objective commonality is that it is males that are expressing themselves this way with a firearm or firearms. Something more than the availability of firearms to teenagers is going on in the home. Young men (hunters mostly) have learned how to use guns before the age of 10 for generations and school shootings were almost nonexistent. Something within our society, within the familial structures has changed.

It might have to do with two income families shifting from oddity to normalcy. And the reason I say that is as a stay at home Mom in 2002, I was checking on the kids playing in the driveway when I noticed two of the boys who lived next door using a hammer and a screwdriver trying to break something on the sidewalk. So I walked over and asked what they were doing and they had a handful of bullets and they were trying to crack them open to get to the black stuff that SNAPS are made of, so they could make more to play with. I asked them to give me the bullets and asked where they had gotten them? They said they were their Grampa's and he didn't know they took them. I asked them to bring me the rest of the bullets and I would return them to Grampa when he got home and then gave them a lecture about what I was worried about and how bullets and firearms should be handled.

Now, what happened after I talked to Gramps, I don't know but I did what I could given the chance I had.

In the area where I live, some of the high school jurisdictions have adopted a program whereby students are required to submit a specified number of volunteer hours in order to graduate. This type of necessary volunteerism, in which one is required to volunteer, but may choose the type of work volunteered for, could produce an army of forced volunteers, and this may make a good replacement for the old draft system. It would be a shift away from the focus on foreign to service, toward more community service at home, though the option of foreign service would still be available to those who choose it. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is an impressive idea and one that would seem to work for everyone. I am not sure where our dedication to civil service was lost but your idea is a great way to redefine what it means to be part of a community. Participation in the success of that community instead of leaving it for someone else to worry about. There is a community program out here that I wanted to become a representative for called CERT a community emergency response team and was ready to enroll only to have the idea put in my head that as CERT rep, I could be asked to collect fellow citizens firearms, under circumstances we do not yet know and that I could not do. So I decided not to enroll though I am not sure that would be the same conclusion if I entertained the idea again.

Just buried another Pom. That's three in three months. Unrelated causes. I feel like the Job of dog owners. — Baden

I am so sorry to hear this Baden~ :heart:

The Rottweiler in deep sleep behind me is snoring and even with my music turned up he is making me want to go back to bed. :yawn:

If they start now with an educational program that teaches people the benefits of not having guns, start reviewing all of the people that already have them and begin a restrict control of who gets one in the future they might make a difference in a couple of generations. — Sir2u

Mandatory registration of currently owned firearms would have to be voluntary and then it gets into that hairy idea of confiscation of non registered firearms after a certain date and just tramples our rights.

No, instead just have the government take control of any ammunition manufacturer. That way there is no need to take our guns when they have all the bullets.

You have got to really dig deep to get to that line of thinking. Anyone have a shovel?

In reality, different cultures have very different structures of beliefs, so if we base our judgements of what others need, on our own beliefs, we're bound to get some things wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover

That bridge between cultures is something we have yet to achieve anywhere in the world. Yet it likely exists as it's own thread between the two societies, families separated and made between citizens of both nations, sharing a similar heritage and with that common traditions.

Ungratefulness is hard to swallow, but for anyone intent on helping others, it has to be an expectation. — Metaphysician Undercover

I absolutely agree with you which is why I try really hard not to impose my expectations on anyone but me. My ability to back up that non imposition of expectations of my children was tested and after listening to them, would never have made a wit bit of difference on their opinions even if I had tried.

I asked them (21yrs old and 18yrs old) if they would support the reimplantation of the draft if necessary. After a bunch of defining who, what, where and why it came down to one simple factor. They would agree with the draft but those drafted would only serve on our shores. The future generation is not buying into nation building or arms races. It is about self preservation through a mutli layer system of defenses.

...then of course there is all he has done on the issue of gun control; schools are such safe places now. — Banno

:roll: your reply feels like a veiled attempt at cross contamination of threads but the fabric is stiffer than the Duchess's Veil and allows it to pass....

And so from their perspective, they wonder why they ought give up their guns because others can't use their guns cautiously and safely. — Hanover

It is as logical as all of us having to give up speaking to one another in public because of a few people who cannot help themselves but scream "Fire" in a movie theater or a crowded casino.

When two people fundamentally disagree on an issue and will not back down where do you go from there? — Andrew4Handel

At some point you have to agree to disagree. It doesn't imply fault or loss on one side or the other, it just means that as 'thinkers' have to know that the likelihood of us not agreeing, is just as likely as us agreeing.

It's hard to say how prevalent this attitude actually is. I've heard it expressed as if it were common place, especially amongst soldiers. And president Trump seems to express this attitude, that America gives more than its fair share militarily. But what is the fair share is dependent on whether America is fighting to protect its own interests, or whether it is fighting for the freedom and liberties of others. — Metaphysician Undercover

To me? There is no "fair share" in helping others and maybe that is a fault of mine, that keeps me from seeing what you are seeing. I am not saying that America does not assess the upside of standing alongside those who are fighting for their own liberty but we also accept the downside risk of our actions, which many times has been expressed as America not being able to keep it's nose out of other peoples business.

I know that some find it hard to believe but Americans actually do believe in helping others fighting for their own freedom, for their own liberty. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not find this hard to believe at all. The problem I referred to though, is the problem of Americans who are duped into believing that they are helping others, fighting for their freedom, when really the fight is for some other reason. When this happens, the others who are supposedly being helped, may prove to be ungrateful, and those who are believing that they are helping the others cannot the ungratefulness.

This as I noted is one of the downside risks of helping others but I don't know that it is a result of being duped so much as it is that expectations are set up for others. The expectations are based on our own beliefs mixed with those who are fighting to be free and often times the two do not survive without the other there. Which is why I believe the USA should maintain the DMZ long after the two nations peacefully become one.

Do you think that the average soldier in the US military knows the reasons why those who make the decisions to send them into battle in some distant land make that decision? Sure, an instance like Afghanistan after 9/11 is somewhat obvious, but after WWII "to help those fighting for liberty" was more like a catch phrase carried over from that earlier war, than a real reason. What if there's a difference in reason for being there, between those calling the shots (to protect our interests), and those firing the shots (to help those fighting for liberty)? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I do believe the 1% of our population who willingly serve our nations military, know the reasons why they are being sent to a "distant land". Next week our God Daughter who is 25 and a Navy Officer serving on the USS Iwo Jima in the sea of Japan, will be pinned for her next officer rank, in command of her amphibious assault ship. She clearly understands why she is positioned where she is and it is likely a mix of protecting those that are already there, along with helping those whose liberty we have been protecting for the last 60 years. I will ask her your question and report back to you the honest answer I receive.

May she safely return home to her family after she returns a home to another family in that "distant land". :heart:

The problem I see is this. "Communism" was presented to the American people by the government and media, many years ago, as a threat to the freedom and rights of the people of any country which might fall to communist revolution. In reality, communist revolution was a threat to American capitalists who had investments in those regions. The pinko commie hippies of America saw through the fake news so they demonstrated against the war on communism. They claimed that that the war against communism was a war against the people of those regions, aimed at oppression for capitalist purposes, rather than a fight for the freedom of those people.

Now we have the fallout from this anti-communist propaganda, this fake news of the communist threat.
We have millions of Americans, including some in high military positions, and probably in positions of political power as well, foolishly believing that those people in those regions, owe America for its war against communism. — Metaphysician Undercover

You may be right, I cannot speak for "some in high military positions" and "probably in positions of political power as well" who might/do foolishly believe America is "owed" for any action that is carried out in the name of eradicating [insert evil actors here]. But that is not the prevailing thought that guides the average American, as I consider myself to be, nor the average soldier of which I have family. My feeling is that we are not "owed" anything, when we willingly offer help to whomever around the world needs help in fighting for their freedom. We are not perfect and we do fuck up but as a whole? We try to gracefully walk that fine line between help and interference.

But these people with this opinion, misunderstand the situation. By your own words, America has been "heavily invested" in blood and toil for the past 60 years. But this investment was not for the sake of those people, in those regions, it was for the sake of the capitalists of this region. That's the intent behind investment, profit. So the people of those regions owe America nothing, the blood and toil was for the profit of Americans. I'm sure you know what invest means, as that's the word which you used. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not agree with you that the only reason we "invest" our own blood and toil, is for a financial profit. For the last 22 years I have heavily invested blood and toil into raising my children but it was certainly not for a financial profit. I know that some find it hard to believe but Americans actually do believe in helping others fighting for their own freedom, for their own liberty.

On a personal note, my Uncle willingly served the United States Army for 33 years beginning with enlisting for Vietnam and ending with Desert Storm. He certainly didn't choose to devote his life to fight for the capitalists of any region. No. He served for one reason and one reason only and that is his dedication to help those fighting for liberty.

You use "we" as if you've fallen for the deception, that "we" signifies a unity of everyone, "us and them"; "we will all profit from the war against communism". But it's really nothing more than a thinly disguised separation of "these people" from "those people". And what is that but an "us" and "them"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Think of "we" as a meeting point between "us" and "them", or "you" and "I" where we can agree or disagree with one another on some points but "we" agree to go forward.

This attitude of "we" is the deceptive attitude. "We" is ambiguous, as no individual is necessarily in or out. The "we" is synonymous with "us", and the us is always against them. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. I used the word "we" specifically, even though I know of the word "us", there is no need to replace any word of mine with a word you "twisted" to find more fitting. We will never get anywhere if it is always as you suggest "us against them". But if we can find a place of common ground "we" can go forward.

Isn't there a contradiction in there? How can one who only trusts a few, never hold back his opinion? If you were prone to distrust, wouldn't you actually hold back your true opinion, revealing only a false presentation of your opinion? I think Bolton's past speaks loud and clear for what he is not: he is not one to be trusted. His real intentions are unclear, but appear to be along the lines of US world dominance. — Metaphysician Undercover

Maybe..

Distrust is easily earned and trust, when earned is rarely respected which is why Donald Trump has such a small administration. I understand it seems like an absurd concept but it keeps people guessing and allows movement of his position. He doesn't write emails because of that inherent need to protect his thoughts as they evolve. Donald Trump was not groomed to be a politician but rather a business man, both share the skill of hustle, they just display it in a different manner.

Politicians believe that they are the smartest person in the room because they are when representing those who elected them to a political position.
Successful businessmen surround themselves with people they trust AND that are smarter than them, in known areas of personal deficit.

In other words, successful CEO's are Master Delegators and lead as a "We" not as an "I". Hence the well thought out choice of bringing Giuliani on board and the power of Bolton's intimate knowledge, of the very chaos he has been put in the position to manage and to that degree, I can see that as Peninsula dominance until we leave. We have been heavily invested in blood and toil for the past 60 years so we need to distrust but verify and that could take a decade or more. Together, as a United Front, there is no world issue that cannot be entertained AND understood by the Executive branch of our current government common as well as the common man. And that is appreciated.

Would you say yes or no to a prize for Trump? — frank

I think it is way too soon to be calling a "prize" before you even mount your steed.
Distrust and verify has got to be the wickedly strong MO as we move forward.
Never underestimate a liar, on either side.
Bolton understands more about Iran, China and the Korean peninsula than the entire last administration and is now in a very influential position.
If you have been a Fox viewer of opinion shows like The Five, Outnumbered, Hannity, Carlson and The Greg Gutfeld show, you know everything about the great Mustached one. He never holds back his opinion, he trusts few and he cannot be bullshitted. The man is always listening and always thinking.
Could he be a loose cannon like many thought Cheney was? Maybe but that might not be a bad thing right now.

Why is banning guns an ideal, then? — Thorongil

It is not an ideal but rather a goal by those who might be more short sighted than others. Even if a majority of American citizens could be convinced of it today, what happens in 20 years when our government has changed along with the rest of world? Who do we appeal to in order to get our rights of self protection back? And if they can take our right to self defense away, whose to say that we will even have our first right of freedom of speech left unaltered?
Crickets.....that is what you would hear from those in the role of power at the time. Allow the citizens of the USA to rearm themselves? In a time of crisis? Are you insane?

Ranch sitting again, nothing like a good morning muck to get you ready to handle the rest of the world. :sweat:

So when NicK and I got in the car I explained to him what had happened and he dismissed it as the guy just being a "huggy" kind of person. I called bullshit on NicK because I am a "huggy" person and I have never uttered such words to a man while embracing and NicK still, today, believes that I am over-reacting. Am I? I don't even want to be around him because knowing NicK doesn't have my back on this makes me nervous. Not because I don't know how to put an end to it but because of the ripples within our friendships it would cause if he were to do it again and still not hear me and make me call him out on it. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

disturbing update: NicK shared with me that he now in fact believes what I said about his friends brothers' actions and that it was not me that was "over-reacting". Shocked I turned to him and asked him what exactly changed his mind about what I SAID happened?

I am having trouble with his response as he said that when the group of guys went out to the range, the brother (offender) stayed behind at the house with another brothers wife. Apparently when the other brother got home, he got a earful from his wife about what had just happened to her. HE got pissed at his brother and is still not talking to him and THAT is what made NicK believe me. Pretty fucked up if you ask me. I expressed that to NicK and he once again said that "You are quite capable of taking care of yourself" and I informed him that I was well aware of that but a spousal backup didn't seem unreasonable and expressed that to him.

I wonder how extreme of a situation I would need to be in when he would consider backing me up. It is not a comforting wonder by any means but I do wonder... :worry:

See? I can laugh but I can't cry. It's strange because I've always thought of myself as emotional. I'm not so worried about positive emotions. I still feel happy and it feels like my life has a purpose. What I'm concerned about is that I've stopped feeling for other people. I used to care about things like my family, friends, animals, the environment. Now it's all gone. I don't feel anything about these things now. Of course I haven't given up on society. I still think I have to be a responsible member of family and society but there's no emotion attached to these thoughts. I miss that. — TheMadFool

I realize that this might be a stretch but is it possible that you have just come of the age, where you realize what "is" in your control and what "is not" within your control?

The reason I say this, is because for me it was somewhere between 17 and 21 years old, that I started to notice similar feelings of lack of empathy for others, even though I cared about them. Things that used to make me cry no longer had that affect on me, things that used to make me laugh became harder to find humor in, in fact I had to start looking for things to make me laugh, almost forcing myself to enjoy what others were.

When I did talk to a therapist I surprised myself when I told him that I would be in a public place by myself and I found hearing the laughter of others irritating, which is the opposite of who I had been, usually leading the guffaw. There were some situational things that I had to work through but in the end, it turned out what I was experiencing was a reconciliation between how I expected things to be and the reality that was before me.

Just not going to push it very hard though. — Lone Wolf

Excellent! You will be up and galloping soon! :up:

@chatterbears
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
We are glad you are here~

@TheMadFool
Your observation is something I would have noticed if I was paying attention to the smoking aspect but I haven't as I love watching animals and their habits. I used to joke that my horse Dasher, if he was a human, would have been a chain smoker.

Why? Horses have habits that can become a bit obsessive much like chain smokers but instead of lighting up, Dasher would grip the galvanized steel paddock rails in between his teeth and would drag his teeth back and forth on the rail, all day long. We call it "cribbing" but Dasher? I think he would have been just as happy with smoke, after smoke, after smoke. :up:

Occasionally he would kick back a beer with us but that tidbit is for another day. :cool:

The Christian/Jewish Alliance. I think its called the fellowship. — SherlockH

Jewish people will side with Christians faster than they will a Muslim. — SherlockH

I think it is called a wildly absurd idea with no merit or back up.

Jewish people will side with Christians faster than they will a Muslim. — SherlockH

What makes you think this?
What evidence do you have to back it up?

@Lone Wolf
How is the hoof?

@Sir2u
How was the Coco Vino?

@SherlockH
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Enjoy your stay ~