Arguing for idealism from scientific theories that are poorly understood and subject to change, such as quantum mechanics, is to build one's idealism on sand. The arguments of Plato, Augustine, Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhauer, etc are a much firmer base on which to rest one's idealism, since they don't depend on scientific theories and aren't made falsifiable by them.

That said, I am continually nonplussed by the general hostility toward idealism displayed by the philosophical and scientific communities. The only explanation for it that I can see is that most philosophers and scientists are positivists who lump idealism in with what they would regard as "magical thinking" or what have you.

not a serious attempt at insult. — Baden

By the way, I knew it wasn't an attempted insult. The bitter sarcasm and hyperbolic reactions in this thread have always been accompanied by an implicit wink and a nudge. You know that I know that you know that you don't really think I'm crazy. The idea is to make me respond in kind so as to entertain you. I've tried to stick to my position and the argument at hand, however, and not fall for the bait. This is why I say with complete sincerity that you haven't refuted anything I've said. I know what it looks like when someone knows they have me dead to rights. This thread is mostly shitposting and moral preening on the part of you and your mod buddies.

an attempt to steer things back on a more productive path — Baden

I see nothing productive about it. Even if it were, the horse is already out of the barn.

Correction: "rightist evil maniac". ;) — Baden

*Sigh*

Nope. It's your demonstrable paranoia and logical leaps that were objected too. I know you're not a gun lover but you do hate the left in a way that makes you sound irrational at times. — Baden

Perhaps one reason why is because I keep being smugly accused of "demonstrable paranoia and logical leaps" by the left without evidence. Something to think about.

Isn't it possible that like most people, I don't want to see needless loss of lives and would be happy to see any measures taken that would solve the problem? — Baden

How soon you forget (or ignored to begin with). I made this post not long ago:

The samsaric nature of this "debate" in a nutshell:

Person A: I don't think more gun control would have stopped the recent mass shooting. A person intent on mass murder can find a way.

Person B: So that must mean there's no point in regulating weapons or trying to stop these killers! You're an awful person!

The second person's allegation, repeated ad nauseam by Baden and others, is simply a non-sequitur. The first person is not saying that we should not try to prevent these attacks. Rather, 1) he is merely pointing out that no law or regulation would likely have prevented the Las Vegas attack nor prevent all mass casualty attacks in the future and 2) he may have different ideas than the second person about how to reduce their occurrence.

It's only the second person's side that turns an empirically derived observation and disagreement about policy into an opportunity to cast moral aspersions on his interlocutor. In reality, opposition to leftist gun control schemes is only evidence of disagreement, not of indifference to or, even more egregiously, support of mass murder. The first person's side often acknowledges that the other side is 1) genuinely repulsed by mass shootings, 2) wants them to stop, and 3) believes that their policy recommendations will solve the problem or at least greatly alleviate it. The second person's side takes disagreement with 3) to directly entail a lack of 1) and 2). Don't fall for this red herring, because its sole purpose is to guilt trip you into agreeing with 3), the evidence for which is up for rational debate.

When you're unable to discuss substance, all that's left is to invoke ideological spectres to cover over argumentative inability. It's generally a good sign. — StreetlightX

Amazing projection here.

My statements aren't inconsistent particularly seeing as I clarified the first one in the Shout box in a reply to Sapientia. But even if there were an inconsistency, your conclusion makes no sense. You think you've found an inconsistency, you admit that you know of no reason that I would lie.Your conclusion: I'm lying. As I said, you're an odd one. — Baden

You're forgetting the other possibility, which is that you modified your position into the pragmatic one you've presented here when it was pointed out to you that you were inconsistent. I don't know that, though, which is why I said I can't read your mind.

I like that you presume I'm a leftist and I have tactics. It's kind of like being in a movie or something. — Baden

Nice dodge.

You might look up what DC v. Heller decided. Sorry, but your continued attempts to describe the possibilities I listed as - to take just a few adjectives that you have presently chosen to deluge me with so as to paint me as a raving lunatic - "imaginary," "unrealistic," and "fantastic," don't hold up. I wouldn't call being one supreme court vote away from losing the individual right to bear arms any of those things. But go ahead and persist in your ignorance. It's clearly cathartic for you to write these posts labeling me a conspiracy theorist in fifty different ways.

Well said, and I agree. Winter is marvelous and probably tied with fall as my favorite season.

But I have noticed that the serious visual arts have not overlooked what I am talking about. Maybe aesthetics is not popular culture's strong suit. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Not just the visual arts, though. One of the reasons why I like black metal is that it tries to pay homage to winter and its aesthetic qualities.

I don't think anyone important takes immaturity, and name calling as all that devastating of an opposition. — Wosret

Right. I certainly don't.

The leftist mod brigade has tried very hard, sometimes with sarcasm and sometimes with apparent seriousness, to paint me as a gun-loving and toting nutjob. Just look at the hyperventilation, condescension, and references to petri dishes earlier in this thread.

Little do they know that I've never owned a gun, am not particularly fond of them (I most admire the katana as far as weapons go), think hunting is an immoral activity, and am wary of people wielding them in public. For example, I was in an antique store with my mother several years ago, and I noticed across the street several people with assault rifles slung over their shoulders. I assumed they were part of a pro-gun rally or something of the sort, but I found it uncouth and wanted to leave immediately. Maybe this is what @Bitter Crank means by "normalization," and if so, I agree that it's repulsive.

But there is another sense of normalization that I think the founders had in mind, which is that private citizens be encouraged to learn how to responsibly own and use firearms appropriate to self-defense and to "the security of a free state."

So, if I agree with you that the founding fathers wanted an armed citizenry, provided the citizenry wished to be armed, can you see the sense in placing a ceiling on the kind of arms that the citizenry can have? — Bitter Crank

Yes. I've said just that in this very thread.

It remains to be seen whether this is true today -- one hopes it will not be put to a test. If the hundred million (give or take a few million) Americans were to revolt and turn their guns on the military, I am not sure they would win. — Bitter Crank

I've seen this point and its general template before. Here I would point to a fact that is sure to warm the anti-war left's cockles, which is that the American military, with all of its objectively superior armaments, has found itself bogged down in Afghanistan for well over 15 years, unable to finally defeat a ragtag insurgency numbering far less than the total of gun owning Americans. Think of Vietnam as well. If the US government fully descended into tyranny and, among other things, attempted to disarm the populace, I think it would have a very hard time indeed emerging victorious in a war against them. I would note that we're very far from that potentiality, however, since those in the military are often the most vociferous defenders of the second amendment.

Found this just now, too. A lot of nice, relevant quotes: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The English Bill of Rights recognized the right to bear arms. Several state legislatures did as well, prior to the Constitutional Convention. John Adams, speaking of America, said, "Here every private citizen is authorized to arm himself." Jefferson praised the importance of guns, saying in a letter to a nephew, "Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." And the militias were entirely composed of private citizens who, for the most part, provided their own arms. So to the extent that the US government supported and encouraged the militias, which it did, it supported and encouraged citizens to bear arms. Finally, look at the language of the second amendment itself, which says that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. So it's not only granting the people merely the permission to own arms. It deems it necessary that they do.

It would be even sillier, and indeed creepy, I think, to want to own one because it looks like a scary military weapon. — Ciceronianus the White

I think I would agree actually, but I still wouldn't ban them on account of aesthetic differences.

Prevention is a better strategy than self-defence when you take into account the bigger picture. — Sapientia

I agree.

Your way aggravates the problem rather than alleviates it. — Sapientia

I disagree.

No, the best is that which is sufficient and does the least damage. — Sapientia

Which is a gun, in many cases. Why do you still refuse to understand my very simple point here?

were dedicated to the normalization of guns in public and domestic settings — Bitter Crank

The problem for you is that the American founders were in favor of having every American citizen armed. In fact, the desire for people to be armed can be traced back to 17th century England and even to the medieval period. Guns were a normal feature of public and domestic settings for a large portion of American history.

I'm all ears if I didn't. Go ahead and show me, T.

The point is obviously that there are means of self-defence besides guns which are sufficient. — Sapientia

And my point is that, in addition to being sufficient, guns are the best means of self-defense in many cases.

Perhaps. But the militias, as I understand it, were at the service of government; primarily state and local but also, in some instances, the federal government. So, for example, state militia were provided by the governors of certain states to put down the "Whiskey Rebellion." — Ciceronianus the White

I think this is mostly true, but the preamble to the second amendment doesn't negate, and wasn't meant to negate, an individual right to bear arms.

It seems now that the militias envisioned by some are to be available in opposition to the government. — Ciceronianus the White

That was the view at the time too, not just now.

has been excited about modified military weapons which it would be hard to characterize as being for hunting and recreation — Ciceronianus the White

Excepting bump stocks, most of these modifications are cosmetic in nature. I think it's kind of silly, to say the least, to ban guns that "look" like scary military weapons, when in fact they're not.

There you go. Get rid of legal guns and there won't be gun crime. — Michael

It's been tried. Didn't work.

Threads aren't supposed to be merely long strings of PMs. — Bitter Crank

Quite. But I've been responding to several people in this thread, all of whom disagree with me (and more than that, think that I'm an evil maniac), so forgive me if I don't respond to every post not explicitly addressed to me.

What? Don't be obtuse. Guns are sufficient for self-defense. Dispute that claim or go away.

You passed over my serious post about the NRA to bite the joke bait. — Bitter Crank

You didn't respond to me when making that post. I'll look at it shortly.

That makes no sense. There's no "most sufficient". Something is either sufficient or it is not. — Sapientia

Sure. My point remains either way.

Thanks for the catch. I notice you didn't dispute what I said, though. ;)

Buy it? It's in stock, mein Freund.

It's about sufficiency rather than what's more or less effective. — Sapientia

Yeah, and sometimes a gun is the most sufficient.

especially if you factor in the effect that tighter gun controls would have on the weapon of choice that your attacker pulls on you. — Sapientia

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.944a791e15bb

Hardy har har.

You're right. Squirt guns and pepper spray would have been so much more effective in all those cases. What was I thinking?

It is necessary. Hundreds of thousands of times a year.

No. That clearly isn't an appropriate means of self-defense. The average citizen didn't own a cannon to protect himself.

OK, so only guns that were available at the time the Second Amendment is written should be allowed. — Michael

Or their rough equivalents that are appropriate means of self-defense.

You are an odd one sometimes. Why would you presume something you can't even think of a reason for? But, fine. Your complaints about tactics ring a little hollow now though. — Baden

You said one thing in the Shoutbox, which you then contradicted here. I'm just calling it like I see it.

You also ignored the first half of my post. So my point about leftist tactics still holds good.

Oh, well why didn't you say so sooner? I guess that makes it okay, then. I'll bear that in mind in the case that I'm shot by some idiot who was able to get his hands on a gun far too easily. It might be of some solace. — Sapientia

If you insist on playing this game, I guess banning guns makes all the rape, murder, and theft that people would have otherwise been able to ward off with a gun okay. I'm sure they'll find some solace in being scapegoats for "the greater good" and the moral consciences of The Philosophy Forum mod team.

@Agustino: Rene Girard, eat your heart out!

Err, 'the last one' was about the threat of undergroud conspiratorial lefties. It's not all about you, you know. — StreetlightX

Oh, I see. Looked at in that light, it seems I was right about the persecution complex.

I have no reason to lie about my views on gun control. I can't even think one up. Feel free to enlighten me. Why am I lying about what I think about gun control and what do I really think? — Baden

How should I know? I hate to break it to you, but I'm not actually a mind reader.

A case in point concerning my comments about leftist tactics:

the specimen that is Thoron — StreetlightX

pathological — StreetlightX

without any sense of reality — StreetlightX

hysterical — StreetlightX

underground, conspiratorial — StreetlightX

You're the REAL probelm we ought to be dealing with — StreetlightX

The last one sounds like a threat. Maybe I should buy a gun to protect myself.